Lira v. Director of Correct, et al

Filing 361

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR CRATEO INDICATION re 340 . Signed by Judge Susan Illston. (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2008)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. / ERNESTO LIRA, Plaintiff, No. C 00-905 SI O R D E R DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR CRATEO INDICATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA On October 14, 2008, the Court held a hearing on defendants' motion for a Crateo indication. Defendant Tilton seeks an indication that this Court would be inclined to entertain a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal from the Court's denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment if the Ninth Circuit were to grant a limited remand to allow defendant to file such a motion. Defendant would like the Ninth Circuit to decide: (1) whether plaintiff's injunctive and declaratory claims are moot as a result of plaintiff's discharged status; (2) the proper standard for determining whether prison procedures for reviewing gang validation and segregation satisfy procedural due process rights; (3) the legal standard for determining whether responses to inmate appeals violate constitutional rights; and (4) the procedural requirements for providing an inmate with notice of his placement in segregated housing. The Court DENIES defendant's motion because defendant has not shown that there are "extraordinary circumstances" justifying an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 474-45 (1978). This case has been pending for 8 years, and trial is scheduled for January, 2009. An interlocutory appeal is not likely to materially speed the termination of this litigation, and instead would substantially prolong the ultimate resolution of this litigation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendant's motion. (Docket No. 340). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 14, 2008 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 2

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?