Opinion ID: 3010471
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Unreviewability

Text: Last, to be appealable under the collateral order doctrine, an order must be such that review postponed will ultimately be review denied. See Praxis Properties, 947 F. 2d at 58; Zosky v. Boyer, 856 F.2d 554, 561 (3d Cir. 1988). An order is effectively unreviewable if the order involves an asserted right the legal and practical value of which would be destroyed if it were not vindicated before trial. Lauro Lines, 490 U.S. at 499, 109 S. Ct. at 1978 (citations omitted). The Commonwealth argues that by permitting the petitioner to return to state court and exhaust particular issues, the order effectively destroys any appellate review of its appropriateness. We agree. If we do not review the matter at this juncture, the Petitioner will have returned to state court and exhausted his claims, thereby presenting the district court with an exhausted habeas petition and rendering the appropriateness of the district court's stay 9 and abeyance ruling unreviewable. We therefore find that the district court's order holding the habeas petition in abeyance is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment in this case. In summary, we find that the district court's order holding Christy's habeas petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of state court remedies satisfies all the requirements of the collateral order doctrine and, as such, is an appealable order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Having determined that we have the requisite jurisdiction, we now turn to the merits of this appeal. Our review is plenary. Toulson v. Beyer, 987 F.2d 984, 986 (3d Cir. 1993).