Opinion

Brown v. Gennrich

Court
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Filed
Feb 3, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 32.5%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

______________________________________________________________________________

ENNIS LEE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 16-cv-241-pp

JACOB GENNRICH, MARLON HANNAH,

MICHAEL HUBER, and MICHAEL NINKOVIC,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PETITION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

(DKT. NO. 136)

______________________________________________________________________________

The plaintiff has filed a petition for an interlocutory appeal of the court’s

January 6, 2020 order. Dkt. No. 136. Specifically, he wishes to appeal the

court’s order denying his motion for recusal, his motion to compel discovery

and his motion to add parties and claims. Id. at 1. The plaintiff states that the

court’s rulings were based on incorrect facts and that they were in retaliation

for his filing a complaint in the court of appeals about this court’s “bias” and

“inability” to act or administer the law as it demands. Id. (quotation marks in

the original).

A party may take an interlocutory appeal (an appeal from an order that

does not resolve the case) under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) if the district court certifies

that the otherwise unappealable order involves a (1) controlling question of law,

(2) as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and (3)

immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the

litigation. 28 U.S.C. §1292(b). A “question of law” refers to a question regarding

the meaning of a statutory or constitutional provision, regulation or common

law doctrine. Boim v. Quranic Literacy Inst., 291 F.3d 1000, 1007 (7th Cir.

2002) (citing Ahrenholz v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Il., 219 F.3d 674, 675

(7th Cir. 2000)).

There is no basis to certify an interlocutory appeal of the court’s January

6, 2020 order. The issues the plaintiff has identified do not involve controlling

questions of law and will not materially advance the termination of this

litigation.

The court DENIES the plaintiff's petition for interlocutory appeal. Dkt.

No. 136.

Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 3rd day of February, 2020.

BY THE COURT:

Chief United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.