Opinion
1:22-cv-00177-AWI-CDB (PC)
10-24-2022
GUILLLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. M. GONZALEZ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 21)
Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo Cruz (“Plaintiff”') is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 9, 2022, this Court issued its Order Dismissing Action, Without Prejudice, for Failure to Pay Filing Fee. (ECF No. 15.) Judgment was entered that same date. (ECF No. 16.)
On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. (ECF No. 17.) Pursuant to docket entry number 19, dated September 20, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals assigned the appeal case number 22-16434. (ECF No. 19.)
On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a document titled “'Response to Notice of Appeal.'” (ECF No. 20.)
On October 14, 2022. Plaintiff filed “'Plaintiff's Motion and Motion for Reconsideration Rule 60(b).'” (ECF No. 21.)
Plaintiffs appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider his motion for reconsideration. Generally, the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction with respect to all matters involved in the appeal. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982); Bermudez v. Duenas, 936 F.2d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 1991); Gould v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 772 (9th Cir. 1986); Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir. 1984); Davis v. United States, 667 F.2d 822, 824 (9th Cir. 1982).
A notice of appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction if, at the time it was filed, “there was a pending motion for reconsideration.” United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. R&D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i)). However, the district court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion for reconsideration that is “filed after the notice of appeal has been filed.” Katzir's Floor & Home Design, Inc. v. M-MLS.com, 394 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 586 (9th Cir. 2004) (vacating order denying motion for reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction where the motion was filed after the notice of appeal and the movant did not follow the procedure for seeking a remand of the case back to the district court); Carriger v. Lewis, 971 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (same)).
Here, because the appeal is pending in the Ninth Circuit, and was filed before the motion for reconsideration, this Court is without jurisdiction to rule on Plaintiff's motion. Additionally, for those same reasons, the Court is without jurisdiction to take any action, even were it inclined to do so, concerning Plaintiff's September 30, 2022 (Doc. No. 20) filing.
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.