Wilson v. Arpaio et al

Filing 133

ORDER denying 109 Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer. See attached Order. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 10/30/2015.(TLB)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Demetrius Antwan Wilson, Plaintiff, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-14-01613-PHX-JAT Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Demetrius Wilson’s Motion to Transfer to the 15 16 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 109). The Court now rules on the motion. 17 I. Background 18 Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee who was booked into the Fourth Avenue Jail in 19 Phoenix, Arizona on May 13, 2014, under booking number T079391. (Doc. 115 at 2). On 20 July 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendants violated 21 his civil rights. (Doc. 1 at 1). Plaintiff amended his complaint on November 20, 2014. 22 (Doc. 9). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated his Eighth and Fourteenth 23 Amendment rights by improperly treating his colostomy and by not providing adequate 24 medical and sanitation supplies. (Doc. 23, Ex. 2 at 3-12A). 25 On October 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed an interlocutory notice of appeal, (Doc. 121), 26 challenging three separate orders of this Court issued on June 30, 2015, (Doc. 64), 27 August 11, 2015, (Doc. 93), and September 9, 2015, (Doc. 104). The Ninth Circuit Court 28 of Appeals limited review to the September 9, 2015 order. (Doc. 130 at 1). Plaintiff 1 requests that his case be transferred to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 109 at 1). 2 II. Analysis 3 Plaintiff appears to request that his case be transferred to the Ninth Circuit to be 4 tried there. (Id.) For the sake of clarity, the Court will discuss this motion as both a 5 request to transfer to the Ninth Circuit and as a request to take an interlocutory appeal. 6 A. 7 Plaintiff asks to “[m]ove case to the Court of Appeals [f]or the bias in the above 8 case and to take [j]urisdiction [f]or the deprivation of Plaintiff[’s] Constitution[al] rights.” 9 (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants and the Court denied Plaintiff a jury trial and forced 10 him into a deposition, which prejudiced both his pending criminal case and this civil 11 claim. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff further contends that the “Courts are taking advantage of 12 violating [sic] Plaintiff[’s] Constitutional rights.” (Id. at 4). Finally, Plaintiff asserts that 13 under “Color of law[,] any official or employee that know or reasonable Should know 14 that that a Constitutional right has be Violated and do not reacted on it will be held liable 15 [sic throughout].” (Id.) It appears Plaintiff is arguing that the Court’s rulings against 16 Plaintiff are evidence of bias and that the only way “[j]ustice can be serve[d]” is through 17 transfer to the Ninth Circuit. (Id.) Transfer 18 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is a court of limited jurisdiction, and its 19 jurisdiction is purely statutory. Young Properties Corp. v. United Equity Corp., 534 F.2d 20 847, 849 (9th Cir. 1976). The Courts of Appeals “shall have jurisdiction of appeals from 21 all final decisions of the district courts of the United States, . . . except where a direct 22 review may be had in the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Additionally, the Courts of 23 Appeals have jurisdiction over interlocutory decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 and over 24 certain agency actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1296. The jurisdiction of the Courts of Appeals 25 is purely and exclusively appellate. Pollard v. Sup. Ct. for State of Mich., 334 F.2d 129, 26 130 (6th Cir. 1964). 27 There is simply no precedent or procedural mechanism for transferring an entire 28 pending case from a district court to a Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit “possesses -2- 1 only such jurisdiction as Congress chooses to confer.” Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. 2 Co. v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 102 F.3d 425, 427 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations 3 omitted). Congress has primarily limited this jurisdiction to appeals from final decisions 4 of district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. As the Court has yet to issue a final decision, the 5 Court is unable to grant Plaintiff’s motion. 6 B. 7 Plaintiff alleges that several of the Court’s orders were in error, including the 8 Court’s orders of June 30, 2015, (Doc. 64), and of August 11, 2015, (Doc. 93). (Doc. 109 9 at 1). Plaintiff contends that the Court failed to rule on his Motion to Supplement 10 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, (Doc. 62). (Doc. 109 at 1). Plaintiff further 11 asserts the Court erred by finding that Plaintiff stated a valid claim for injunctive relief, 12 but then later denying the injunction. (Id.) Interlocutory Appeal 13 The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal 14 [w]hen a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, [and the judge] so state[s] in writing in such order. 15 16 17 18 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Additionally, the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over appeals from 19 orders “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions.” 28 U.S.C. § 20 1292(a)(1). 21 To the extent Plaintiff’s motion can be interpreted to request an interlocutory 22 appeal, it is redundant. On October 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed an interlocutory notice of 23 appeal addressing these same orders. (Doc. 121). The Ninth Circuit has previously denied 24 Plaintiff’s interlocutory request regarding the Court’s orders of June 30, 2015, (Doc. 64), 25 and of August 11, 2015, (Doc. 93). (Doc. 130 at 1). Thus, the Court denies Plaintiff’s 26 Motion. 27 III. 28 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, -3- 1 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer (Doc. 109) is DENIED. 2 Dated this 30th day of October, 2015. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?