Opinion

(PC) Coleman v. Newsom

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Sep 25, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.5%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 RALPH COLEMAN, et al., No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P

12 Plaintiffs,

13 v.

14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., ORDER

15 Defendants.

16

17

18 Defendants have filed a motion to modify three orders of this court: the March 8,

19 2017 order, ECF No. 5573, governing requirements for consultation with the Special Master; the

20 December 15, 2017 order, ECF No. 5750, approving suspension of transfer timelines to inpatient

21 care in “unusual circumstances; and this court’s April 24, 2020 order, ECF No. 6639, relying on

22 both the March 8, 2017 and December 15, 2017 orders, and holding the DSH Director is required

23 to seek modification of court orders before acting unilaterally in violation thereof and temporarily

24 modifying prior orders “to include COVID-19 screening in accordance with the protocols

25 presented to this court and agreed upon by the parties. . . . ,” id. at 11. On May 7, 2020, the court

26 granted in part and denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the April 24, 2020 order.

27 May 7, 2020 Order, ECF No. 6660. On May 26, 2020, defendants filed a notice of appeal from

28

1 the April 24, 2020 and May 7, 2020 orders and “all earlier, non-final orders that produced the

2 orders and are thereby merged with them.” ECF No. 6684.

3 “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it

4 confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those

5 aspects of the case involved in the appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Hitchmon, 587 F.2d 1357

6 (CA5 1979). Cf. Ruby v. Secretary of United States Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (CA9 1966) (en

7 banc) (notice of appeal from unappealable order does not divest district court of jurisdiction),

8 cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1011 [ ] (1967).” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S.

9 56, 58 (1982). In Ruby, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit described the

10 district court’s discretion when faced with a notice of appeal from an arguably non-appealable

11 order:

12 Where the deficiency in a notice of appeal, by reason of untimeliness,

lack of essential recitals, or reference to a non-appealable order, is

13 clear to the district court, it may disregard the purported notice of

appeal and proceed with the case, knowing that it has not been

14 deprived of jurisdiction. If the district court is in doubt as to whether

the notice of appeal is inoperative by reason of some such defect, it

15 may decline to act further until the purported appellee obtains

dismissal of the appeal in the court of appeals.

16

17 Ruby, 365 F.2d at 389. The court does, however, retain jurisdiction to enforce orders that have

18 not been stayed pending appeal or superseded. See Armstrong v. Brown, 857 F.Supp.2d 919,

19 948-49 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (internal quotations and citations omitted), order enforced (Aug. 28,

20 2012), order aff'd, appeal dismissed, 732 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2013).

21 All three orders defendants seek to modify are covered by their pending appeal.

22 After review of the record, and good cause appearing, the court declines to act on the pending

23 motion unless and until the appeal is resolved by the court of appeals.

24 The court notes that at hearing on this motion, counsel for plaintiffs represented

25 there are significant delays in transfers to inpatient care even for class members who are not

26 subject to COVID-19 holds. Defendants are reminded they must accurately report all delays in

27 transfers to inpatient care on the monthly reports being filed with the court, including whether

28

1 those delays fall into any court-approved exception to timely compliance with the transfer

2 timelines.

3 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’

4 August 31, 2020 motion to modify, ECF No. 6843, is denied without prejudice due to the

5 pendency of defendants’ appeal from the orders that are the subject of said motion.

6 DATED: September 25, 2020.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.