Lidia G. Bistrika v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a private Washington corporation licensed to do…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIDIA G. BISTRIKA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, a private Washington
corporation licensed to do business in
Oregon,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-35197
D.C. No. 6:11-cv-06158-TC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Thomas M. Coffin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted November 16, 2016***
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Lidia G. Bistrika appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-35197
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 (2009)
(discussing collateral order doctrine, and reiterating “that the class of collaterally
appealable orders must remain narrow and selective in its membership”); Wilborn
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.

-- 2 of 2 --