United States v. Bryan

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 2:22-cv-01962-DJC-AC 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 MARK LINN BRYAN et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Defendant Mark Linn Bryan has moved for leave to appeal this Court’s Order 17 denying his Amended Motion to Dismiss. (Mot. Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No. 166); 18 see also Order (ECF No. 165).) Generally, a party may appeal only after final 19 judgment. Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Ctr., 548 F.3d 738, 747 (9th 20 Cir. 2008). In narrow circumstances, however, a district court has authority to certify a 21 question for interlocutory appeal before final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); 22 Couch v. Telescope, Inc., 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2010). The party seeking 23 certification of an interlocutory appeal bears the burden of establishing three 24 elements: (1) the order involves a controlling question of law, (2) there is substantial 25 ground for differences of opinion as to the question for which certification is sought, 26 and (3) an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate resolution of 27 litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). “Certification under § 1292(b) requires the district 28 court to expressly find in writing that all three § 1292(b) requirements are met.” 1 | Couch, 611 F.3d at 633. Interlocutory appeals are granted “sparingly and only in 2 | exceptional cases.” United States v. Woodbury, 263 F.2d 784, 788 n.11 (9th Cir. 1959). 3 Defendant does not address any of section 1292(b)’s elements. Rather, 4 | Defendant expresses disagreement with this Court's ruling and with this Court's 5 | decision to rule on his Amended Motion to Dismiss without a hearing. (Mot. at 1-3.) 6 || However, Defendant fails to identify any controlling question of law or explain why an 7 | immediate appeal would advance the litigation, and a “party's strong disagreement 8 | with a court's ruling is not” a “substantial ground for difference of opinion.” Couch, 9 | 611 F.3d at 633. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Leave to File an Interlocutory 10 | Appeal will be denied. 11 CONCLUSION 12 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File an Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No. 166) is 13 | DENIED. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | Dated: _December 6, 2024 “Daal J CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta v7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 | DJC4 - Bryan22cv1962.MotinterlocAppeal 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28