Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Baltuff v. United States

35 F.2d 507

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1929-10-21
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that there is no 21 jurisdiction over an interlocutory order denying a motion for recusal
  • holding that there is no 1 On August 14, 2019, the court entered a vexatious litigant order against Ms. 2 Miner. See In re Madiha Miner, No. MS19-0106JLR (W.D. Wash.), Dkt # 1; see also 3 Miner v. Soc. Sec. Admin., et al., No. C19-0821JLR (W.D. Wash.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Baltuff v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
7 opinions
BALTUFF v. UNITED STATES,35 F.2d 507(9th Cir. 1929)
BALTUFF v. UNITED STATES et al.
No. 5832.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
October 21, 1929.
Rehearing Denied November 25, 1929.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Western District of Washington; Northern Division. Edward E. Cushman, Judge.

Libel by Eduarda K. Baltuff against the United States. From orders denying the substitution of a new judge and refusing libelant authenticated copy of affidavit of prejudice and amended application for a new judge, libelant appeals. Appeal dismissed.
Eduarda K. Baltuff, of Tacoma, Wash., in pro. per.

Anthony Savage, U.S. Atty., and Jeffrey Heiman, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash., for appellees.
Before DIETRICH and WILBUR, Circuit Judges, and LOUDERBACK, District Judge.
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
From the nature of appeal contained in the record it appears that the appellant "appeals from the denial of Judge Edward E. Cushman for aPage 508new judge to hear and determine the issues of the above-entitled cause, and his denial to libelant of her right to an authenticated copy of her affidavit of prejudice and amended application for a new judge." Apparently, from the record, two applications were made to the trial judge for proceedings under 28 USCA §§ 23, 25, based upon an affidavit attempting to allege bias and prejudice, and that the judge was to be a witness.

These orders are not appealable. McColgan v. Lineker (C.C.A.) 289 F. 253.

Appeal dismissed.