Opinion
No. CV 16-02856-PHX-DGC (MHB)
05-19-2020
Douglas D. Yokois, Plaintiff, v. Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Douglas Yokois is currently confined in Arizona state prison. He brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Docs. 1, 28. On September 17, 2019, the Court granted Defendants' summary judgment motion and entered a final judgment. Docs. 228, 229. One month later, Plaintiff filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions and a notice of appeal from the judgment. Docs. 233, 236. Defendants seek to clarify whether a response to the motion is required. Doc. 242. For reasons stated below, the Court will terminate the motion for sanctions without prejudice to refiling after the appellate proceedings have concluded. Defendants are not required to file a response to the motion.
The filing of a notice of appeal generally "confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379 (1985) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). "The Ninth Circuit has explained this divestiture rule as one of judicial economy 'designed to avoid the confusion and waste of time that might flow from putting the same issues before two courts at the same time.'" Pinson v. Estrada, No. CV 18-00535-TUC-RM, 2020 WL 2308484, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 8, 2020) (quoting Cal. Dep't of Toxic Substances Control v. Comm Realty Project, Inc., 309 F.3d 1113, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002)). "The operative question in determining jurisdiction is whether 'the district court would be deciding the same issues as the appeals court.'" Id. (quoting Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1997)).
Plaintiff's motion for sanctions argues that Defendants submitted certain declarations with their summary judgment motion for "(1) the improper purposes of harassment and to cause unnecessary expense to Plaintiff; (2) factual contentions that do not have, or are unlikely to have, evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (3) denials of factual contentions unwarranted by the evidence." Doc. 233 at 2. While Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions and requests that Defendants' counsel and her office be reprimanded, he also requests that he be granted "summary judgment . . . on each of the issues in which aforenamed persons or their attorneys are found to have violated [Rule] 11(b)." Id. at 18.
Deciding the motion for sanctions would require the Court to consider "aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Marrese, 470 U.S. at 379. Plaintiff asserts that the summary judgment declarations include factual contentions without evidentiary support, and requests that summary judgment be granted in his favor. Doc. 233 at 2, 18. The Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to rule on the motion for sanctions. See Rienhardt v. Ryan, No. CV-03-00290-TUC-DCB, 2016 WL 1171124, at *5 (D. Ariz. Mar. 25, 2016) ("[Petitoner's] arguments are pending before the appellate court . . . and thus this Court is divested of authority to rule on them."). Moreover, "it would be an inefficient use of judicial resources for both this Court and the Ninth Circuit to consider the same issues simultaneously with the looming risk of inconsistent rulings." SolarCity Corp. v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., No. CV-15-00374-PHX-DLR, 2016 WL 5109887, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 20, 2016). The Court will terminate the motion for sanctions without prejudice to refiling after the appellate proceedings have concluded and the Ninth Circuit's mandate has issued.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's motion for Rule 11 sanctions (Doc. 233) is terminated without prejudice to refiling after the appellate proceedings have concluded and the mandate has issued.
2. Defendants' motion for clarification (Doc. 242) is granted. Defendants are not required to file a response to Plaintiff's motion.
Dated this 19th day of May, 2020.
/s/_________
David G. Campbell
Senior United States District Judge