United States v. Danny Fabricant
This text of 581 F. App'x 663 (United States v. Danny Fabricant) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
In these companion appeals, federal prisoner Danny Joseph Fabricant appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying filing of his application for an order requiring DNA testing under 18 U.S.C. § 3600, and from the district court’s order denying his ex parte request for discovery. In Appeal No. 13-50191, we remand. We dismiss Appeal No. 13-50271 for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
In Appeal No. 13-50191, Fabricant contends that the district court erred when it refused to file his application for DNA testing on the ground that the case was closed. We agree. As the government concedes, section 3600 provides a post-conviction remedy. See 18 U.S.C. § 3600(a). Despite the government’s request that we nevertheless affirm because the application fails on its face, we instead remand to the district court with instructions to file the application and consider it on the merits in the first instance.
In Appeal No. 13-50271, Fabricant challenges the district court’s order denying his ex parte request for discovery. We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See Admiral Ins. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1490 (9th Cir. 1989) (discovery orders are not final appealable orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291).
Appeal No. 13-50191 REMANDED with instructions; Appeal No. 13-50271 DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
581 F. App'x 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-danny-fabricant-ca9-2014.