White et al v. Valarie

Filing 67

ORDER CONSTRUING Plaintiff's Document Filed on September 23, 2013, as a Notice of Appeal, in Compliance With the Ninth Circuit's Order of October 22, 2013 in Appeal No. 13-16718 55 , 60 ; ORDER VACATING Findings and Recommendation on Nove mber 8, 2013 as Moot 61 ; ORDER for Clerk to: (1) Reflect Notice of Appeal on Court Docket 60 ; (2) Forward Notice of Appeal to Ninth Circuit 60 ; (3) Serve a Copy of This Order on the Ninth Circuit, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/6/13. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HORTENSE WHITE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 1:13-cv-00157-AWI-GSA-PC ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S DOCUMENT FILED ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2013, AS A NOTICE OF APPEAL, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S ORDER OF OCTOBER 22, 2013 IN APPEAL NO. 13-16718 (Docs. 55, 60.) vs. TRENONE VALARIE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 8, 2013 AS MOOT (Doc. 61.) 17 18 ORDER FOR CLERK TO: 19 (1) REFLECT NOTICE OF APPEAL ON COURT DOCKET (Doc. 60); 20 21 (2) FORWARD NOTICE OF APPEAL TO NINTH CIRCUIT (Doc. 60); 22 (3) SERVE A COPY OF THIS ORDER ON THE NINTH CIRCUIT 23 24 25 26 I. BACKGROUND 27 Hortense White (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 28 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case was dismissed on August 1 1 30, 2013, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 2 1983, and judgment was entered on August 30, 2013. (Docs. 53, 54.) 3 On October 22, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Appeal 4 No. 13-16718. (Doc. 55.) In the order, the Ninth Circuit directed its Clerk to “transmit 5 appellant’s response to this court’s September 11, 2013 order to show cause, received in this 6 court on September 23, 2013, to the district court for filing as a notice of appeal from the final 7 judgment entered in the district court on August 30, 2013.” (Id.) 8 The district court received appellant’s response from the Ninth Circuit’s Clerk on or 9 about November 6, 2013 and filed it on September 23, 2013. (Doc. 60.) However, the district 10 court inadvertently construed the document as a Motion for Extension of Time to File an 11 Appeal. 12 recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time be denied. (Doc. 61.) (Id.) On November 8, 2013, the court issued findings and a recommendation, 13 Discussion 14 The district court now recognizes that, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s order of 15 September 11, 2013, the document filed on September 23, 2013, Document 60 on the district 16 court’s docket, should have been construed as a Notice of Appeal. Therefore, the court shall 17 now construe Document 60 as a Notice of Appeal, and the Clerk shall be directed to forward 18 the Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit for processing. 19 In light of the fact that Document 60 is now construed as a Notice of Appeal, the 20 findings and recommendation issued on November 8, 2013, are moot and shall be vacated. 21 III. CONCLUSION 22 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s order of September 11, 2013 in Appeal No. 13- 24 16718, the document filed as Document 60 at the district court on September 23, 2013 is now 25 construed as a Notice of Appeal by Plaintiff from the final judgment entered in the district court 26 on August 30, 2013; 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 2. The Clerk is directed to reflect on the court’s docket that Document 60 is now 2 construed as a Notice of Appeal, forward the Notice of Appeal to the Ninth 3 Circuit for processing, and serve a copy of this order on the Ninth Circuit; and 4 5 3. The Findings and Recommendation issued on November 8, 2013, are VACATED as moot. 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10 11 12 December 6, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 6i0kij8d 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?