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)
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?