Opinion
2:09-cr-00933-CAS-1
07-25-2024
USA v. Boyajian
Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, Judge.
CRIMINAL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) - DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Dkt. 1767, filed on June 14, 2024)
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Dkt. 1766, filed on June 24, 2024)
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY (Dkt. 1769, filed on July 11, 2024)
I. INTRODUCTION
Presently before the Court is defendant Ronald Gerard Boyajian's motion for reconsideration of the Court's May 29, 2024 Order. Dkts. 1766, 1777.
It appears that defendant has filed two identical copies of the instant motion.
The facts and history of this case are well known to the parties. In March 2016, a jury convicted defendant of multiple sex offenses. Dkt. 1332. In February and March of 2019, he filed six motions for a new trial based on allegedly newly discovered evidence. Dkts. 1664, 1666, 1667, 1668, 1669, 1670. The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and issued its mandate on October 20, 2023. Dkt. 1744.
On February 1, 2024, the Court denied each of defendant's six motions for a new trial. Dkt. 1748.
On February 8, 2024, defendant filed an ex parte application requesting the Court suspend proceedings relating to his six motions for a new trial. Dkt. 1749. On February 23, 2024, the Court denied defendant's motion as moot. Dkt. 1752.
On March 8, 2024, defendant filed a motion to vacate the Court's February 1, 2024 Order denying defendant's six motions for a new trial and also to extend the deadline to appeal the order by thirty days. Dkt. 1753.
On March 15, 2024, defendant filed a notice of appeal regarding the February 1, 2024 Order. Dkt. 1755.
On April 4, 2024, the Court denied defendant's motion to vacate and granted defendant's request to extend the deadline to appeal until March 16, 2024. Dkt. 1758. Accordingly, the Court deemed defendant's March 15, 2024, notice of appeal to be timely. Id. at 5.
On April 22, 2024, defendant filed a notice of reconsideration. Dkt. 1759. On April 24, 2024, the Court construed defendant's filing as a request to file a motion for reconsideration and granted the request. Dkt. 1760. The Court ordered defendant to file his motion for reconsideration by May 15, 2024. Id.
On May 17, 2024, defendant filed three motions for an evidentiary hearing, for a case management conference, and for recusal, respectively. Dkts. 1761, 1762, 1763. On May 29, 2024, the Court issued an order finding that it “lacks jurisdiction over the[se] motions” because “[t]he filing of a notice of appeal ‘divests the district court of its control over the aspects of the case involved in the appeal.'” Dkt. 1765 at 2 (quoting United States v. Vroman, 997 F.2d 627, 627 (9th Cir. 1993)).
On June 14, 2024, and June 24, 2024, defendant filed two copies of the instant motion for reconsideration of the Court's May 29, 2024, Order. Dkts. 1766, 1767 (“Mot.”). On July 2, 2024, the government filed an opposition. Dkt. 1768 (“Opp.”). On July 11, 2024, defendant filed a request for an extension of time to file a reply. Dkt. 1769.
Having carefully considered the parties' arguments and submissions, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that the Court's May 29, 2024 Order incorrectly states that defendant's motions for an evidentiary hearing, a case management conference, and recusal “all pertain to an attempt to file a motion for reconsideration of the February 1, 2024 Order.” Mot. at 2 (quoting Dkt. 1765 at 4). Instead, he contends that his motions pertained to the Court's April 4, 2024, Order. Thus, he claims that the Court “retains jurisdiction to resolve the[se] three motions.” Id. at 6.
In opposition, the government clarifies that, in the April 4, 2024 Order, the Court “rejected defendant['s] motion to vacate the Court's February 1, 2024 order.” Opp. at 3. Thus, “any attempt to seek reconsideration of the April 4, 2024 order is also an attempt to seek reconsideration of the February 1, 2024 order.” Id. at 3 (emphasis in original).
The Court agrees. Because defendant has filed a notice of appeal challenging the February 1, 2024 Order, the Court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider any new motions for reconsideration pertaining to the order. All of defendant's numerous subsequent motions ultimately arise out of an attempt to relitigate the Court's February 1, 2024 Order denying defendant's motions for a new trial. Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendant's motion for reconsideration. Because the Court finds that defendant will not be able to cure the jurisdictional deficiency in his motion, it also DENIES defendant's motion for an extension of time to file a reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.