Jackson v. Pletcher et al

Filing 236

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 03/25/14 recommending that plaintiff's motion for certificate of appealability 232 be denied. MOTION for CERTIFICATE of APPEALABILITY 232 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAYMOND D. JACKSON,

12
13
14

No. 2: 11-cv-1157 JAM KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

STEVEN PLETCHER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 6, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part

19

defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 220.) On November 21, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of

20

appeal of the November 6, 2013 order. (ECF No. 222.)

21

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s January 28, 2014 motion for certification of the

22

appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). (ECF No. 232). For the following reasons, this motion

23

should be denied.

24

The order addressing defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF 220) is not an appealable order.

25

28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). Thus, in order to appeal this order, plaintiff must obtain an order from this

26

court certifying the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Certifications of interlocutory orders are proper

27

if they involve a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference

28

of opinion and when an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate
1

1

termination of the litigation. Id. “Section 1292(b) is a departure from the normal rule that only

2

final judgments are appealable, and therefore must be construed narrowly.” James v. Price Stern

3

Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d 1064, 1067 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2002). Section 1292(b) certifications are granted

4

in “rare circumstances” and the “court of appeals … has discretion to reject … interlocutory

5

appeal[s], and does so frequently.” Id. In seeking interlocutory appeal, a movant has a heavy

6

burden to show that “exceptional circumstances justify a departure from the basic policy of

7

postponing appellate review until after the entry of a final judgment.” Coopers & Lybrand v.

8

Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 475 (1978).

9

In the opposition to plaintiff’s motion for certification of the appeal, defendants first argue

10

that the motion is untimely. The motion for certification was filed almost three months after the

11

order plaintiff seeks to appeal.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Although there is no explicit time limit within which a party must
request certification for an interlocutory appeal, see 28 U .S.C. §
1292(b), many courts have held that an unreasonable and
unexplained delay in seeking certification is sufficient cause for
denying the request. Scholl v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 58, 60
(2005) (“Unreasonable delay constitutes sufficient cause to deny a
motion [for certification]....”); Weir v. Propst, 915 F.2d 283, 285–
87 (7th Cir. 1990) (Posner, J.) (declining jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1292(b) due to defendants’ “gratuitous and protracted”
delay of five months in seeking certification); In re Buspirone
Patent & Antitrust Litig., 210 F.R.D. 43, 49 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)
(denying request or certification due to “inexcusable or, at best,
unexplained delay” of three months); Ferraro v. Sec'y of U.S. Dep't
of Health & Human Servs., 780 F.Supp. 978, 979–80 (E.D.N.Y.
1992) (denying request for certification due to plaintiff's unjustified
delay of two and a half months); see also 3–28 Moore’s Federal
Practice & Procedure § 28.11 (3d ed. 2001) (“[I]f a party takes an
excessive delay in seeking an amendment, the district court may
deny a motion to amend.”). The Seventh Circuit has held that a
delay of two months in seeking certification constitutes sufficient
grounds to refuse permission for an interlocutory appeal, and has
cautioned that district judges should not grant “inexcusably dilatory
request[s]” for certification. Richardson Elecs., Ltd. v. Panache
Broad. of Pa., Inc., 202 F.3d 957, 958 (7th Cir. 2000) (Posner, C.J.)
(citing Weir, 915 F.2d at 287).
While the Ninth Circuit has not expressed its view with regard to
the timeliness of an initial request for certification, it has aligned
itself with the Seventh Circuit on a very similar question dealing
with requests for recertification. On that issue, the Ninth Circuit,
like the Seventh Circuit, has held that an appellant may not
circumvent the ten-day jurisdictional time limit of 28 U.S.C. §
1292(b) by seeking recertification of “an order that was previously
2

1

certified for appeal but from which the appellant failed to timely
petition to appeal.” See In re Benny, 812 F.2d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir.
1987) (citing Nuclear Eng'g Co. v. Scott, 660 F.2d 241, 247 (7th
Cir. 1981)). In such cases, jurisdiction over the appeal may be
refused if it would fail to serve the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)
by promoting judicial efficiency. Id.

2
3
4
5

Gagan v. Sharer, 2006 WL 3736057 at *1 (D.Ariz. 2006).
In the pending motion, plaintiff indicates that his delay in seeking certification was caused

6
7

by “procedural error.” Plaintiff’s approximately three month delay in seeking the certificate due

8

to “procedural error” renders the request untimely.1 See Richardson Elecs., Ltd. v. Panache

9

Broad. of Pa., 202 F.3d at 958 (district judge should not grant an inexcusable dilatory request for

10

certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)).
In the alternative, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the issues in the appeal involve a

11
12

controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and

13

that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the

14

litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss all of plaintiff’s claims for failure to

15
16

exhaust administrative remedies except for the claim that defendant Osman provided inadequate

17

medical care in October 2008. The court found that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

18

remedies regarding his claim that defendants failed to provide him with a biopsy of his nose.

19

Nothing in this order involved a controlling question of law of which there is substantial ground

20

for difference of opinion. An immediate appeal from this order would not materially advance the

21

ultimate termination of this litigation.
Accoridngly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for certificate of

22
23

appealability (ECF No. 232) be denied.

24
1

25
26
27
28

Both parties assert that plaintiff had ten days from the date the court issued the order addressing
defendants’ motion to dismiss to file his motion for certification. “Although there is no specific
time limit for seeking certification under § 1292(b), if the district court grants a party’s request for
certification, that party may then petition the Court of Appeals within ten days for permission to
immediately appeal the certified issue.” Olmos v. Ryan, 2012 WL 3548068 at *1 (D.Ariz. 2012).
The ten day time limit contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) applies to the time for filing petition
from the order certifying the appeal.
3

1

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

2

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

3

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

4

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

5

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

6

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

7

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

8

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

9

Dated: March 25, 2014

10
11

Jack1157.cert

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4