Dawes v. The People of the State of California
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Dawes v. Ausbury (2026-07-31) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff William Dawes, a pro se prisoner, moved to appeal a district court order staying his civil rights action pending the outcome of related state criminal proceedings. The court denied the motion, holding that the stay order was not a final, appealable judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, did not qualify for the collateral-order exception, and did not meet the requirements for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Appeal Stay Order“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to appeal the stay order previously issued in this case.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the final judgment rule and the collateral order doctrine. Stays are generally not appealable because they do not terminate the litigation. The court also correctly noted that the requirements for interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b) are jurisdictional and were not met. The decision follows standard federal appellate procedure. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly identifies that a stay order is not a final judgment under § 1291, citing the controlling Supreme Court precedent in Moses H. Cone. It correctly applies the three-part test for the collateral order exception from Coopers & Lybrand and Cohen, concluding the stay does not meet the criteria. It also correctly applies the Ninth Circuit's holding in Couch that § 1292(b) requirements are jurisdictional. The reasoning is concise but complete for the procedural issue presented.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM DAWES, Case No. 19cv2122-MMA-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 vs. MOTION TO APPEAL STAY ORDER 14 15 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF [Doc. No. 52] CALIFORNIA, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff William Dawes, a California inmate proceeding pro se, brings this civil 20 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Bravo, Gene, Ugalde, 21 Ausbury, Silva, Shellano, Ayala, Solis, and Zuniga. See Doc. No. 13. The parties 22 previously moved to stay these proceedings for a period of four months pending the 23 outcome of related criminal proceedings in state court. See Doc. No. 44; see also S.D. 24 Sup. Ct. No. SCS287189. The Court granted the motion. See Doc. No. 46. Thereafter, 25 Defendants filed a Status Report advising the Court that due to developments in 26 Plaintiff’s pending criminal proceedings, including issues regarding Plaintiff’s 27 competency, a further stay was warranted. See Doc. No. 49. The Court agreed and 28 ordered this action stayed through February 18, 2022. See Doc. No. 50 (“Order”). l Plaintiff now moves “to appeal the stay order.”! See Doc. No. 52. However, “the 2 || usual rule [is] that a stay is not ordinarily a final [appealable] decision for purposes of [28 3 ||U.S.C.] § 1291, since most stays do not put the plaintiff effectively out of court.” Moses 4 ||H. Cone Mem’! Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 10 n.11 (1983) (internal 5 || quotation marks omitted). Such is the case here as proceedings will resume after the 6 temporary stay has expired. As such, Plaintiff has not been put “out of court.” The Order 7 also not appealable under the collateral-order exception to section 1291’s finality 8 ||requirement. “To come within the ‘small class’ of decisions excepted from the final- 9 || judgment rule. . ., the order must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an 10 |/important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively 11 unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 12 || U.S. 463, 468 (1978) (quoting Cohen vy. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 13 ||546 (1949)). The Order does not satisfy these criteria. 14 Nor is the Order appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Even if the Court 15 || liberally construes Plaintiff's submission as requesting certification of the Order for 16 |/interlocutory appeal, the Court may do so only if: (1) a “controlling question of law” is 17 || involved; (2) “substantial ground for difference of opinion” on the issue exists; and (3) an 18 |/interlocutory appeal will “materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 19 U.S.C. § 1292(b). These requirements are jurisdictional and none of them have been 20 ||met here. Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2009). 21 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to appeal the stay order 22 || previously issued in this case. This action remains stayed through February 18, 2022. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || DATE: July 20, 2021 LM - hphlr 5 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 26 27 28 Although Plaintiff” s submission is barely legible, the Court has endeavored to construe it liberally considering Plaintiff’s pro se status.