Free Order on Motion to Stay - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00056-NVW-LOA Document 102 Filed 02/16/2006 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kerry Allynn Chase, Plaintiff, vs. Brian Cox, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 04-056 PHX NVW ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff's Motion For Stay Pending Appeal (FRAP 8) (doc. # 99). The order which Plaintiff has attempted to appeal (doc. # 95) is plainly not an appealable order, as it is not a final order or any other type of appealable interlocutory order. Nor could it be certified for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1292(b); nor would the court certify it if it could. The notice of appeal is plainly ineffective, and the court will proceed with ruling on the pending motions for summary judgment as permitted by LRCiv 7.2(i), the Plaintiff having failed to file any responses within the required time as extended by the order of January 19, 2006 (doc. # 95). Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58-61 (1982) (notice of appeal from nonappealable order did not divest district court of jurisdiction); Ruby v. Secretary of the Navy, 365 F. 2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1011 (1967); In re Estate of Connors, 6 F.3d 656, 658-59 (9th Cir. 1993).

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 27 28

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion For Stay Pending Appeal (FRAP 8) (doc. # 99) is denied. DATED this 14th day of February 2006.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00056-NVW-LOA Document 102 Filed 02/16/2006 Page 2 of 2