Moore v. Oklahoma City, City of et al

Filing 78

ORDER denying 75 plaintiff's motion for permission to appeal interlocutory order 74 . Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 3/9/2012. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
WESLEY T. MOORE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY and
DANIEL GODSIL,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-11-86-M

ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to Appeal Interlocutory Order (Doc
#74) with Brief in Support, filed February 7, 2012. On February 28, 2012, defendant Daniel Godsil
filed his objection. Based upon the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
Plaintiff moves this Court to amend its February 2, 2012 Order denying plaintiff’s Motion
to Amend Petition to include the language required by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 5(a)(3), for an immediate appeal. Section 1292(b) provides, in pertinent part:
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.
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). All of the statutory requirements of Section 1292(b) must be satisfied to
warrant certification for immediate interlocutory appeal by a district court. Ahrenholz v. Bd. of
Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 219 F.3d 674, 676 (7th Cir. 2000). Thus, in determining whether to certify
an order for interlocutory appeal, a court must find the following: (1) the order is not otherwise

appealable;1 (2) the order involves a controlling question of law; (3) there is substantial ground for
difference of opinion as to the question at issue; and (4) an immediate appeal will materially advance
the termination of litigation.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that the statutory
requirements of Section 1292(b) are not met in this case. Specifically, the Court finds that plaintiff
has not shown that there is substantial ground for difference of opinion as to the Court’s ruling on
plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Petition. Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s Motion for
Permission to Appeal Interlocutory Order (Doc #74) [docket no. 75].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of March, 2012.

1

There is no dispute that the Court’s February 2, 2012 Order is not otherwise appealable by

statute.