Flores v. Flores, et al.

Filing 42

ORDER DENYING 41 Motion for Relief from Judgment for Lack of Jurisdiction signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/1/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
SANTOS RENE FLORES,

Case No. 1:14-cv-00577-MJS (PC)

10
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.
S. FLORES, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION
(ECF No. 41)

Defendants

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

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this
civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have consented to
Magistrate Judge jurisdiction for all purposes. (ECF Nos. 7 & 17.) .) Now pending before
the Court is Plaintiff’s September 16, 2016 Motion Under Fed. Rule Civil Procedure Rule
60(b), construed as a motion for relief from a judgment or order pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(b). (ECF No. 41.)
Plaintiff’s case was dismissed on January 20, 2015, and judgment was entered
that day. (ECF Nos. 25 & 26.) Plaintiff appealed. (ECF Nos. 35 & 36.) On January 19,
2016, this Court issued an order revoking Plaintiff’s IFP status on appeal and certifying
the appeal as frivolous. (ECF No. 39.) On April 6, 2016, the Ninth Circuit confirmed the
District Court’s certification and directed Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within 21 days.
(Order, Flores v. Flores, No. 16-15029 (9th Cir. Apr. 6, 2016), ECF No. 7.) On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

September 2, 2016, Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed after Plaintiff failed to pay the filing
fee. (Order, Flores v. Flores, No. 16-15029 (9th Cir. Sept. 2, 2016), ECF No. 17.)
Plaintiff filed his motion for relief from judgment after he appealed to the Ninth
Circuit and received a final determination on the merits. This Court no longer has
jurisdiction over his case. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount, 459 U.S. 56, 58
(1982) (Generally, “[t]he 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.”) To the extent
Plaintiff disagrees with the Ninth Circuit’s determination, his remedy would be to appeal
the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment is DENIED for
lack of jurisdiction.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated:

February 1, 2017

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2