plaintiff's “filing of a notice of 7 || appeal... confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control 8 | over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”
How later courts described this case
- plaintiff's “filing of a notice of 7 || appeal... confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control 8 | over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 Louis Peets, No. 2:18-cv-02469-KJM-DMC
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 Scott Kernan, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
17
§1983. On February 16, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations
18
recommending denial of plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 36, and directing the
19
parties to file objections within fourteen (14) days of that filing. ECF No. 39. On March 12,
20
2021, plaintiff requested a 45-day extension to file objections. ECF No. 40. The Magistrate
21
Judge denied that request. ECF No. 41. In the interest of justice, this court sua sponte granted
22
plaintiff’s motion for an extension to file objections. See generally Order (March 29, 2021), ECF
23
No. 43. On April 27, 2021, plaintiff timely filed his objections, which were docketed on May 3,
24
2021. See generally ECF No. 46.
25
A review of the docket reveals plaintiff’s objections were docketed in reference to
26
separate findings and recommendations filed by the Magistrate Judge on March 24, 2021, not
27
those filed on February 16, 2021. Id. On May 14, 2021, the court adopted the February 16
28
1 | findings and recommendations and denied plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief. Order (May 14,
2 | 2021), ECF No. 47. In that order the court states, “[n]o objections to the findings and
3 || recommendations have been filed.” In fact, however, plaintiff had filed the timely objections, as
4 | noted above. See ECF No. 46. The court lacks jurisdiction to correct the May 14 order because
5 || plaintiff filed a notice appealing the court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. See ECF No. 51;
6 || Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (plaintiff's “filing of a notice of
7 || appeal... confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control
8 | over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”). The court nonetheless acknowledges the
9 || docketing error.
10 The court directs the Clerk to serve this order on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and
11 || correct the docket to properly link plaintiff's objections, ECF No. 46, to the findings and
12 || recommendations the Magistrate Judge filed on February 16, 2021, ECF No. 39.
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14 | DATED: December 3, 2021.
15
16
CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28