Martina L Walker et al v. Keith Stanton et al

Filing 142

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION held before Judge Virginia A. Phillips: This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motion to reconsider the Courts order denying his motion to disqualify the judicial officer to whom his c ase is assigned, which the Court ordered filed on September 18, 2008, notwithstanding its failure to comply with the Courts Local Rules. On September 11, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the judgment entered in this case on September 2, 2 008. The filing of that appeal divested this Court of jurisdiction to hear the present motion; in other words, because of the pending appeal, this Court lacks the power to decide the present motion. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance -- it 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.). As noted in the Courts previous Order, the Clerk shall provide to plaintiff a copy of the Courts Local Rules. (mrgo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3470 Twelfth Street, Riverside, CA 92501 CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL Case No. EDCV 08-00024-VAP (OPx) Date: September 18, 2008

Title: MARTINA L. WALKER, et al. v. KEITH STANTON, et al. ========================================================================= PRESENT: HONORABLE STEPHEN G. LARSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Jim Holmes Courtroom Deputy Clerk ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: None present PROCEEDINGS: None Present Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None present ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion to reconsider the Court's order denying his motion to disqualify the judicial officer to whom his case is assigned, which the Court ordered filed on September 18, 2008, notwithstanding its failure to comply with the Court's Local Rules. On September 11, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the judgment entered in this case on September 2, 2008. The filing of that appeal divested this Court of jurisdiction to hear the present motion; in other words, because of the pending appeal, this Court lacks the power to decide the present motion. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) ("The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance -- it 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."). As noted in the Court's previous Order, the Clerk shall provide to plaintiff a copy of the Court's Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk: jh 1