Opinion
A150443
05-05-2017
HULEN T. HARRELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT et al., Defendants and Respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG13665188)
Plaintiff Hulen T. Harrell, appearing in propria persona, purports to appeal "three separate final and collateral orders rendered and dated 10-28-2016." The record reflects that five orders were entered on October 28, 2016. As defendants note in their motion to dismiss the appeal, none of the five orders entered on the relevant date are appealable orders. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the appeal.
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff is currently being detained at a county jail pending resolution of charges that he is a sexually violent predator. On January 18, 2013, plaintiff filed a civil complaint against defendants alleging numerous causes of action challenging his prior criminal convictions as well as the conditions of his current confinement. Following a round of demurrers, a second amended complaint was filed on February 27, 2015.
On April 29, 2016, the trial court sustained defendants' demurrer and granted their motion to strike portions of the second amended complaint. The orders left four outstanding causes of action in the second amended complaint.
On June 10, 2016, plaintiff filed three motions. In the first motion, plaintiff sought reconsideration of the court's November 17, 2014 order sustaining defendants' demurrer to the first amended complaint on the ground that he had newly discovered evidence. Plaintiff's second motion sought leave to amend the complaint to add the Alameda County Sheriff's Civil Litigation Department and Senior Deputy County Counsel Raymond MacKay as defendants. Finally, in his third motion, plaintiff requested that the court provide him with a court reporter for all telephonic hearings held in this case.
On October 28, 2016, the court denied all three motions. On the same day, the court also entered an order rescheduling a motion to strike an amended answer and a case management order. Plaintiff's notice of appeal was filed on January 4, 2017.
Discussion
"A reviewing court has jurisdiction over a direct appeal only when there is (1) an appealable order or (2) an appealable judgment. [Citation.] . . . [¶] A trial court's order is appealable when it is made so by statute." (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 696.)
Plaintiff's notice of appeal indicates that the orders are appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivisions (a)(1) (final judgment) and (a)(6) (order granting or dissolving injunction). None of the five orders entered on October 28, 2016 constitutes a final judgment nor do they relate to an injunction. Nor are any of the remaining provisions of section 904.1 applicable.
All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.
Section 904.1, subdivision (a) reads in relevant part, "An appeal, other than in a limited civil case, may be taken from any of the following: [¶] (1) From a judgment, except (A) an interlocutory judgment, other than as provided in paragraphs (8), (9), and (11), or (B) a judgment of contempt that is made final and conclusive by Section 1222. [¶] . . . [¶] (6) From an order granting or dissolving an injunction, or refusing to grant or dissolve an injunction."
The case management and rescheduling orders are clearly non-appealable interlocutory orders and well-established case law confirms that the remaining three orders are not appealable. (See Reese v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1242 ["Section 904.1 . . . does not authorize appeals from . . . orders [denying reconsideration]."]; Randall v. Beber (1950) 101 Cal.App.2d 179, 180-183 [order denying leave to amend to substitute parties is not an appealable order]; Gonzi v. Superior Court (1959) 51 Cal.2d 586, 588-589 [order denying application for a court reporter is not appealable].) Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.
Defendants' request for judicial notice of additional facts in support of their motion to dismiss is denied on the ground of relevancy. --------
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed.
Pollak, Acting P.J. We concur: Siggins, J.
Jenkins, J.