Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8698321
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Bistrika v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
No. 8698321 · Decided November 23, 2016
No. 8698321·Ninth Circuit · 2016·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
November 23, 2016
Citation
No. 8698321
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM *** Lidia G. Bistrika appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion for reconsideration and motion for appointment of counsel in her employment discrimination action brought under state law. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the challenged order is not immediately appealable. See Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106-07, 113 , 130 S.Ct. 599 , 175 L.Ed.2d 458 (2009) (discussing collateral order doctrine, and reiterating “that the class of collaterally appealable orders must remain narrow and selective in its membership”); Wilb orn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 , 1330 & n.2 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding an order denying the request for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 not immediately appealable). DISMISSED. pjjjg disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Plain English Summary
Bistrika appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion for reconsideration and motion for appointment of counsel in her employment discrimination action brought under state law.
Key Points
01Bistrika appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion for reconsideration and motion for appointment of counsel in her employment discrimination action brought under state law.
02We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the challenged order is not immediately appealable.
03599 , 175 L.Ed.2d 458 (2009) (discussing collateral order doctrine, and reiterating “that the class of collaterally appealable orders must remain narrow and selective in its membership”); Wilb orn v.
041986) (holding an order denying the request for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C.
Frequently Asked Questions
Bistrika appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion for reconsideration and motion for appointment of counsel in her employment discrimination action brought under state law.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Bistrika v. Costco Wholesale Corp. in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on November 23, 2016.
Use the citation No. 8698321 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.