Pumphrey v. Battles
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:21-cv-09005
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Pumphrey v. Battles, Judge Corley denied defendants’ request to immediately appeal two earlier orders in this civil-rights case.
The ruling affected the defendants’ request for immediate appellate review. The case remained scheduled for further proceedings, including a jury trial.
What happened
Pumphrey v. Battles concerns defendants’ detention of Tyrone Pumphrey at Martinez Jail on June 8, 2019. Defendants asked the court to allow an immediate appeal of two earlier orders.
The first earlier order granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The second denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants argued that the legal issues should be reviewed before trial.
Judge Corley denied defendants’ request for certification. She found that defendants had not shown a substantial disagreement among judges about the issues, and that an immediate appeal would not materially advance the case, particularly because trial was close. The court vacated the March 9 hearing and set jury selection and trial for July 10, 2023.
The detailed version
- Pumphrey v. Battles · No. 3:21-cv-09005
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Mar. 3, 2023
Background
This civil-rights case arises from defendants’ detention of Tyrone Pumphrey at Martinez Jail on June 8, 2019. Defendants asked the court to certify two earlier orders for interlocutory review. Interlocutory review is an appeal before the district court has entered a final judgment.
The first order granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The second order denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants sought immediate review of both orders.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a district court may certify a nonfinal order for immediate appeal when the order involves a controlling legal question, there is a substantial ground for disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the litigation. The court explained that this procedure is reserved for exceptional cases and applied sparingly.
Court’s analysis
The court found that defendants had not shown a substantial ground for disagreement. Regarding the motion to dismiss, the court relied on its earlier order denying reconsideration and stated that defendants had identified no contrary authority or meaningful distinction from that analysis.
Regarding summary judgment, the court stated that defendants had again identified no authority contrary to its ruling. Defendants repeated their argument that California court rules do not apply to the administration of federal court cases. The court rejected that argument because defendants overlooked the borrowing requirement in 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which requires federal courts to use state-law tolling rules in the circumstances discussed by the court.
The court also stated that defendants’ second request for certification was made 11 months late and did not appear timely or reasonable. Finally, because trial was imminent, the court was not persuaded that an interlocutory appeal would materially advance the litigation.
Disposition
Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley denied defendants’ motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal. The court vacated the hearing scheduled for March 9, 2023. Because of the court’s unavailability, jury selection and trial were set for July 10 through July 14, 2023, with the pretrial conference remaining scheduled for June 1, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.