WOODWARD v. AFIFY

No. 14-CV-856-RJA-MJR.

SHAWN WOODWARD, Plaintiff, v. AFIFY, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Shawn Woodward, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Muslim Chaplin Afify, Defendant, represented by Ryan Lane Belka , NYS Attorney General's Office.

Officer T. Sewalt, Defendant, represented by Ryan Lane Belka , NYS Attorney General's Office.

Officer Corsi, Defendant, represented by Ryan Lane Belka , NYS Attorney General's Office.

Oficer Otto, Defendant, represented by Ryan Lane Belka , NYS Attorney General's Office.

Senior Counselor Livermore, Defendant, represented by Ryan Lane Belka , NYS Attorney General's Office.

Sergeant Krause, Defendant, represented by Ryan Lane Belka , NYS Attorney General's Office.


ORDER

RICHARD J. ARCARA, District Judge.

On April 25, 2017, the Court affirmed Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer's Decision and Order, which granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motions to compel discovery and for subpoenas duces tecum. See Docket No. 96. Plaintiff has since filed a motion seeking permission to file an interlocutory appeal from the Court's April 25th Decision and Order. See Docket No. 103. The Court construes Plaintiff's motion as one filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Section 1292(b) states that, "[w]hen a district judge . . . shall be of the opinion that [an interlocutory 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." The court of appeals may, then, "in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order." Id.

Plaintiff has not shown, nor is it apparent, how either of § 1292(b)'s requirements is satisfied in this case. Indeed, because "discovery orders are generally collateral in nature, they will rarely satisfy these requirements." In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 1987). Plaintiff's motion is therefore denied.

SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases