Wilkins v. Ahern

Filing 315

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 7, 2012. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

KEENAN WILKINS,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

No. C-08-1084 MMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

v.
SHERIFF GREG AHERN, et al.,
Defendants.

15

/

16
17

Before the Court is plaintiff Keenan Wilkin’s “Request for Ruling on Unanswered

18

Request,” filed July 31, 2012, by which he seeks a ruling on a request included within his

19

June 25, 2012 filing, specifically, a request for leave to file an interlocutory appeal. Having

20

read and considered plaintiff’s July 31, 2012 and June 25, 2012 filings, the Court rules as

21

follows.

22

By order filed February 17, 2012, the Court denied plaintiff’s request to lift the stay

23

of proceedings that was imposed by order filed November 30, 2011. In his request filed

24

June 25, 2012, plaintiff renewed his request to lift the stay. Alternatively, in his June 25,

25

2012 request, plaintiff sought leave to file an interlocutory appeal to seek review of any

26

denial of his renewed request. By order filed July 10, 2012, the Court denied plaintiff’s

27

renewed request to lift the stay.

28

Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to show that the Court’s July 10, 2012 denial

1

of his renewed request to lift the stay “involves a controlling question of law as to which

2

there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the

3

[July 10, 2012] order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” See

4

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (setting forth standard for certifying order as appropriate for

5

interlocutory appeal); Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611 F. 3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding

6

“the party pursuing the interlocutory appeal bears the burden” of demonstrating “the

7

certification requirements of [§ 1292(b)] have been met”).

8
9
10

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for leave to file an interlocutory appeal is hereby
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: August 7, 2012
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2