Robert Edward Stansbury v. Arthur Calderon, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin

Ninth Circuit

Robert Edward Stansbury v. Arthur Calderon, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin

147 F.3d 1193, 98 Daily Journal DAR 8662, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6285, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 18382, 1998 WL 462681

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 5, 1998

Docket98-99004

StatusPublished

This text of 147 F.3d 1193 (Robert Edward Stansbury v. Arthur Calderon, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert Edward Stansbury v. Arthur Calderon, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin, 147 F.3d 1193, 98 Daily Journal DAR 8662, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6285, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 18382, 1998 WL 462681 (9th Cir. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Prisoner Robert Stansbury moves to dismiss the Warden’s appeal of the Order of the district court dated February 26,1998. That order denied the Warden’s Motion to Dismiss Stanbury’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Warden’s Motion to Dismiss was based on alleged deficiencies in the verification of the petition. After denying the motion to dismiss, the district judge declined the Warden’s request to certify the Order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

The district court’s Order denying the motion to dismiss is not a final decision of the district court. It is an interlocutory order and therefore, not subject to immediate appellate review. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. No exception to the final judgment rule, such as the collateral order doctrine, applies. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction.

Stansbury’s Motion to Dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction is granted.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Prisoner Robert Stansbury moves to dismiss the Warden’s appeal of the Order of the district court dated February 26,1998. That order denied the Warden’s Motion to Dismiss Stanbury’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Warden’s Motion to Dismiss was based on alleged deficiencies in the verification of the petition. After denying the motion to dismiss, the district judge declined the Warden’s request to certify the Order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

The district court’s Order denying the motion to dismiss is not a final decision of the district court. It is an interlocutory order and therefore, not subject to immediate appellate review. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. No exception to the final judgment rule, such as the collateral order doctrine, applies. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction.

Stansbury’s Motion to Dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction is granted.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 F.3d 1193, 98 Daily Journal DAR 8662, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6285, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 18382, 1998 WL 462681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-edward-stansbury-v-arthur-calderon-warden-of-the-california-state-ca9-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack