Gregorio Roberto Ortiz Jr v. D L Runnels

Filing 76

PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioner Gregorio Roberto Ortiz Jr.'s motion to disqualify the Honorable Phillip S. Gutierrez, United States Distri ct Judge, the Honorable Victor B. Kenton, United States Magistrate Judge, and the Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge 71 . On 7/7/2014, on the same day he filed this motion to disqualify, petitioner also filed a notice of appe al to the Ninth Circuit. Because petitioners's motion to disqualify Judges Gutierrez, Kenton, and Olguin focuses on their handling of the merits of petitioner's case, petitioner's appeal divested this Court of jurisdiction over the motion to disqualify. Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED without prejudice, subject to renewal after resolution of petitioner's appeal. (gk)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

GREGORIO ROBERTO ORTIZ JR.

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
VICTOR ALMAGER, WARDEN ,
)
)
)
Respondent.
)
________________________________ )
)

Case No. 2:05-cv-00052-PSG-VBKx
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY (Dkt. 71, filed July 7,
2014)

18
19

On July 7, 2014, petitioner Gregorio Roberto Ortiz Jr. filed this motion to

20

disqualify the Honorable Phillip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge, the

21

Honorable Victor B. Kenton, United States Magistrate Judge, and the Honorable

22

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge. Dkt. 71. Petitioner asserts that these

23

judges have exhibited bias in their handling of petitioner’s habeas corpus case. The

24

motion was randomly assigned to the undersigned for ruling pursuant to General Order

25

08-05 and Local Rule 72-5.

26

The Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s motion to

27

disqualify. On July 7, 2014, on the same day he filed this motion to disqualify,

28

petitioner also filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. “The filing of a notice of

1

appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of

2

appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case

3

involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58

4

(1982). Because petitioners’s motion to disqualify Judges Gutierrez, Kenton, and

5

Olguin focuses on their handling of the merits of petitioner’s case, petitioner’s appeal

6

divested this Court of jurisdiction over the motion to disqualify. Accordingly, the

7

motion is hereby DENIED without prejudice, subject to renewal after resolution of

8

petitioner’s appeal.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11
12
13

Dated: July 22, 2014

_______________________________
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2