RALPH COLEMAN V. EDMUND BROWN, JR., No. 17-16080 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 28 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RALPH COLEMAN; et al., No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-16080 Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No. 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB v. EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., Governor of the State of California; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 13, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,** District Judge. State officials appeal from the district court’s order of April 2017, requiring them to come into compliance with the Program Guide timelines for transfer of class members to inpatient care or face civil contempt and monetary sanctions. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. Page 2 of 2 Because the order is not appealable, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 1. The district court’s order did not grant or modify an injunction so as to give us jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Appellants were first ordered to comply with the Program Guide timelines in 2006. The April 2017 order required nothing more. Because it did not “change[] the terms and force of the injunction as it stood immediately prior,” Gon v. First State Insurance Co., 871 F.2d 863, 866 (9th Cir. 1989), it cannot be appealed. 2. Nor was the order “final” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. It was instead “an interim step toward further proceedings.” Plata v. Schwarzenegger, 560 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2009). “A civil contempt order is ordinarily not appealable until the district court has adjudicated the contempt motion and applied sanctions.” Id. We see no reason to depart from that settled rule. We DENY appellees’ fourth request for judicial notice (Docket No. 65). DISMISSED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
