Hussein v. ERSEK et al

Filing 124

ORDER denying 71 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. See order re specifics. E-mail notice (NEF) sent to the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 10/26/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA *** ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

HUSSEIN S. HUSSEIN Plaintiff, v. ADELE ERSEK; et al., Defendants.

3:07-cv-00056-LRH-VPC ORDER

Before the court is plaintiff Hussein S. Hussein's ("Hussein") motion for a certificate of appealability pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Doc. #711. Under Rule 54(b), "when an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay." Discretion is left to the district court to determine the appropriate time when a case is ready for appeal. Curtis-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980). The court's discretion is to be exercised in the interest of sound judicial administration. Id. Here, the court finds that it would not be prudent to allow a piecemeal appeal of the various claims in this matter because there are remaining claims against some of the defendants which have

Refers to the court's docket number.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

not yet been addressed on the merits. Furthermore, the court recognizes the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals. See Curtis-Wright, 446 U.S. at 8. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 54(b) (Doc. #71) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 26th day of October, 2009.

__________________________________ LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2