United States v. Ammon Bundy

MEMORANDUM

Defendants appeal interlocutorily from the district court’s order denying their motion to prohibit their transportation for twelve days, pursuant to writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, for arraignment on separate charges in the District of Nevada. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, and deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

Although this court’s jurisdiction is typically limited to final decisions of the district court, defendants argue that we have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine. Under the collateral order doctrine, a non-final order .is appealable if it: (1) “conclusively determined the disputed question”; (2) “resolved an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action”; and (3) is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” United States v. Romero-Ochoa, 554 F.3d 833, 836 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

Even if defendants can satisfy the first two prongs, they fail to satisfy the third. Whether defendants have suffered any prejudice as a result of dual prosecutions can be…