Dawes v. The People of the State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 WILLIAM DAWES, Case No. 19cv2122-MMA-WVG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 vs. MOTION TO APPEAL STAY ORDER 14

[Doc. No. 52] CALIFORNIA, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff William Dawes, a California inmate proceeding pro se, brings this civil 20 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Bravo, Gene, Ugalde, 21 Ausbury, Silva, Shellano, Ayala, Solis, and Zuniga. See Doc. No. 13. The parties 22 previously moved to stay these proceedings for a period of four months pending the 23 outcome of related criminal proceedings in state court. See Doc. No. 44; see also S.D. 24 Sup. Ct. No. SCS287189. The Court granted the motion. See Doc. No. 46. Thereafter, 25 Defendants filed a Status Report advising the Court that due to developments in 26 Plaintiff’s pending criminal proceedings, including issues regarding Plaintiff’s 27 competency, a further stay was warranted. See Doc. No. 49. The Court agreed and 28 ordered this action stayed through February 18, 2022. See Doc. No. 50 (“Order”). l Plaintiff now moves “to appeal the stay order.”! See Doc. No. 52. However, “the 2 || usual rule [is] that a stay is not ordinarily a final [appealable] decision for purposes of [28 3 ||U.S.C.] § 1291, since most stays do not put the plaintiff effectively out of court.” Moses 4 ||H. Cone Mem’! Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 10 n.11 (1983) (internal 5 || quotation marks omitted). Such is the case here as proceedings will resume after the 6 temporary stay has expired. As such, Plaintiff has not been put “out of court.” The Order 7 also not appealable under the collateral-order exception to section 1291’s finality 8 ||requirement. “To come within the ‘small class’ of decisions excepted from the final- 9 || judgment rule. . ., the order must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an 10 |/important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively 11 unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 12 || U.S. 463, 468 (1978) (quoting Cohen vy. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 13 ||546 (1949)). The Order does not satisfy these criteria. 14 Nor is the Order appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Even if the Court 15 || liberally construes Plaintiff's submission as requesting certification of the Order for 16 |/interlocutory appeal, the Court may do so only if: (1) a “controlling question of law” is 17 || involved; (2) “substantial ground for difference of opinion” on the issue exists; and (3) an 18 |/interlocutory appeal will “materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 19 U.S.C. § 1292(b). These requirements are jurisdictional and none of them have been 20 ||met here. Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2009). 21 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to appeal the stay order 22 || previously issued in this case. This action remains stayed through February 18, 2022. 24 || DATE: July 20, 2021 LM - hphlr 5 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 26 27 28 Although Plaintiff” s submission is barely legible, the Court has endeavored to construe it liberally considering Plaintiff’s pro se status.