×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
CRIPA Stays Not Appealable
The court of appeals for the ninth circuit held that district court orders which stay proceedings for a limited time to require exhaustion of prison administrative remedies pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutional Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e are not appealable. Two Arizona state prisoners filed civil rights actions which the district court stayed pending exhaustion of administrative remedies. The prisoners appealed the stay and the appeals court dismissed the appeal holding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
"Appellants cite this courts decision in Marchetti v. Bitterolf , 968 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1992) in their notices of appeal to support jurisdiction. Appellant's reliance on Marchetti is misplaced. In that case, this court held that an order indefinitely staying a civil rights action to permit exhaustion of state habeas corpus remedies was appealable under the collateral order doctrine established in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corporation , 337 US 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221 (1949). This holding was based on explicit findings that the order conclusively determine a disputed question, resolved an important issue separate from the merits of the action and was effectively unreviewable on appeal."
"We hold that the district court's orders stating appellants' civil rights actions for 90 days to permit exhaustion of administrative remedies satisfies none of the three prongs required to permit interlocutory review, and that this court lacks jurisdiction to review such an order prior to the entry of final judgment." See: Alexander v. State of Arizona , 80 F.3d 376 (9th Cir. 1996).
"Appellants cite this courts decision in Marchetti v. Bitterolf , 968 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1992) in their notices of appeal to support jurisdiction. Appellant's reliance on Marchetti is misplaced. In that case, this court held that an order indefinitely staying a civil rights action to permit exhaustion of state habeas corpus remedies was appealable under the collateral order doctrine established in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corporation , 337 US 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221 (1949). This holding was based on explicit findings that the order conclusively determine a disputed question, resolved an important issue separate from the merits of the action and was effectively unreviewable on appeal."
"We hold that the district court's orders stating appellants' civil rights actions for 90 days to permit exhaustion of administrative remedies satisfies none of the three prongs required to permit interlocutory review, and that this court lacks jurisdiction to review such an order prior to the entry of final judgment." See: Alexander v. State of Arizona , 80 F.3d 376 (9th Cir. 1996).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Alexander v. State of Arizona
| Year | 1996 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 80 F.3d 376 (9th Cir. 1996) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
Alexander v. Arizona, 80 F.3d 376 (9th Cir. 04/03/1996)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 96-15280, No. 96-15291
[4] filed: April 3, 1996.
[5] CHARLES LAVERNE ALEXANDER, II, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF ARIZONA; TRAVIS BADGETT; SAMUEL LEWIS; CECIL TERRY MASSEY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES. MARK HESSELGRAVE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. STATE OF ARIZONA; PERCY HOWARD; MOSES, NURSE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. CV-96-40-WPC. William P. Copple, District Judge, Presiding. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. CV-96-276-RCB. Robert C. Broomfield, District Judge, Presiding.
[7] Charles LaVerne Alexander, II, Florence, Arizona, in Pro Se for the plaintiff-appellant.
[8] Mark Hesselgrave, Florence, Arizona, in Pro Se for the plaintiff-appellant.
[9] No appearance for the defendants-appellees.
[10] Before: Alfred T. Goodwin, Charles Wiggins and Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Circuit Judges.
[11] Order
[12] These appeals seek to challenge the district court's orders staying proceedings for a limited time to require exhaustion of prison administrative proceedings pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. We find that this court lacks jurisdiction over these appeals and we dismiss accordingly.
[13] Appellants cite to this court's decision in Marchetti v. Bitterolf, 968 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1992) in their notices of appeal to support jurisdiction. Appellants' reliance on Marchetti is misplaced. In that case, this court held that an order indefinitely staying a civil rights action to permit exhaustion of state habeas corpus remedies was appealable under the collateral order doctrine established in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 93 L. Ed. 1528, 69 S. Ct. 1221 (1949). This holding was based on explicit findings that the order conclusively determined a disputed question, resolved an important issue separate from the merits of the action, and was effectively unreviewable on appeal. Marchetti, 968 F.2d at 965.
[14] We hold that the district court's orders staying appellants' civil rights actions for 90 days to permit exhaustion of administrative remedies satisfies none of the three prongs required to permit interlocutory review, and that this court lacks jurisdiction to review such an order prior to the entry of final judgment.
[15] DISMISSED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 96-15280, No. 96-15291
[4] filed: April 3, 1996.
[5] CHARLES LAVERNE ALEXANDER, II, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF ARIZONA; TRAVIS BADGETT; SAMUEL LEWIS; CECIL TERRY MASSEY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES. MARK HESSELGRAVE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. STATE OF ARIZONA; PERCY HOWARD; MOSES, NURSE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. CV-96-40-WPC. William P. Copple, District Judge, Presiding. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. CV-96-276-RCB. Robert C. Broomfield, District Judge, Presiding.
[7] Charles LaVerne Alexander, II, Florence, Arizona, in Pro Se for the plaintiff-appellant.
[8] Mark Hesselgrave, Florence, Arizona, in Pro Se for the plaintiff-appellant.
[9] No appearance for the defendants-appellees.
[10] Before: Alfred T. Goodwin, Charles Wiggins and Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Circuit Judges.
[11] Order
[12] These appeals seek to challenge the district court's orders staying proceedings for a limited time to require exhaustion of prison administrative proceedings pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. We find that this court lacks jurisdiction over these appeals and we dismiss accordingly.
[13] Appellants cite to this court's decision in Marchetti v. Bitterolf, 968 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1992) in their notices of appeal to support jurisdiction. Appellants' reliance on Marchetti is misplaced. In that case, this court held that an order indefinitely staying a civil rights action to permit exhaustion of state habeas corpus remedies was appealable under the collateral order doctrine established in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 93 L. Ed. 1528, 69 S. Ct. 1221 (1949). This holding was based on explicit findings that the order conclusively determined a disputed question, resolved an important issue separate from the merits of the action, and was effectively unreviewable on appeal. Marchetti, 968 F.2d at 965.
[14] We hold that the district court's orders staying appellants' civil rights actions for 90 days to permit exhaustion of administrative remedies satisfies none of the three prongs required to permit interlocutory review, and that this court lacks jurisdiction to review such an order prior to the entry of final judgment.
[15] DISMISSED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------