United States of America v. Community Care Network Inc et al

Filing 49

OPINION AND ORDER The Motion to Allow Appeal, DE 43 and the Motion toAllow Appeal No. 2, DE 48 , filed by Aleksander Skarzynski are DENIED. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 9/11/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(kjp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
ALEKSANDER SKARZYNSKI,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
COMMUNITY CARE NETWORK, INC. et al.,)
)
Defendants.
)

NO. 2:14-CV-388

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Allow Appeal,
filed on July 28, 2017 and Motion to Allow Appeal No. 2, filed on
August 11, 2017.

(DE ## 43 and 48).

For the reasons set forth

below, the motions are DENIED.
The instant motions seek permission to appeal prior to entry
of a final judgment, otherwise known as an interlocutory appeal.
Interlocutory appeals are governed by Title 28 U.S.C. section
1292(b), which provides:
When 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, he shall so state in writing in
such order.
An interlocutory appeal is available only when: “(1) the
appeal presents a question of law; (2) it is controlling; (3) it is

contestable; (4) its resolution will expedite the resolution of the
litigation; and (5) the petition to appeal is filed in the district
court within a reasonable amount of time after entry of the order
sought to be appealed.”

Boim v. Quranic Literacy Inst., 291 F.3d

1000, 1007 (7th Cir. 2002).
Certificates of appealability under this section are generally
disfavored because they "frequently cause unnecessary delays in
lower court proceedings and waste the resources of an already
overburdened judicial system.” Herdrich v. Pegram, 154 F.3d 362,
368 (7th Cir. 1998), rev’d on other grounds, 530 U.S. 211 (2000).
Thus, the party seeking an interlocutory appeal must show that
“exceptional circumstances justify the departure from the basic
policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of a
final judgment.”
(1978).

Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 475

Therefore, “the preferred practice is to defer appellate

review until the entry of a final judgment....” Herdrich, 154 F.3d
at 368.
Skarzynski seeks to appeal several orders.
38, 42, and 47).

(DE ## 8, 27, 30,

As to each of these orders, Skarzynski has failed

to meet his burden of showing that exceptional circumstances
justify departure from this Circuit’s general policy of postponing
appellate review until after the entry of final judgment.

See

Ahrenholz v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 219 F.3d 674. 676
(7th Cir. 2000)(“Unless all the[] criteria are satisfied, the
2

district court may not and should not certify its order to us for
an immediate appeal under section 1292(b).”).
Court

exercises

its

interlocutory appeal.

discretion

to

deny

Accordingly, this
the

requests

for

See Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514

U.S. 35, 47 (1995)(“Congress thus chose to confer on district
courts first line discretion to allow interlocutory appeals.”);
Kuzinski v. Schering Corp., 614 F.Supp.2d 247, 249 (D. Conn.
2009)(“Even where [the criteria for an interlocutory appeal] are
met,

the

Court

retains

discretion

to

deny

permission

for

interlocutory appeal.”).
For these reasons, the Motion to Allow Appeal and Motion to
Allow Appeal No. 2

(DE ## 43 and 48) are DENIED.

DATED: September 11, 2017

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

3