Solorio v. Fresno County Department of Behavioral Health Services et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER on Plaintiff's 18 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/6/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

GRACIELA SOLORIO,

6
7
8
9
10

1:14-cv-01284-LJO-BAM

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 18)

v.
FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12

Graciela Solorio (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought claims against the County of Fresno,

13 Kevin Briggs, and Evan Merat (collectively “Defendants”) for assault, infliction of emotional distress,
14 battery, and retaliation. On October 16, 2014, this Court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss
15 without leave to amend, as Plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata. Doc. 16. The Clerk of Court
16 entered judgment on the same date. Doc. 17. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on October 30,
17 2014. Doc. 18. On October 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit and the appeal
18 was processed on November 4, 2011. Docs. 19 & 20.
19

Plaintiff’s appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider her motion for reconsideration.

20 Generally, “filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance – it confers jurisdiction
21 on the court of appeals and divests the court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the
22 appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982); United States v. Vroman,
23 997 F. 2d 627, 627 (9th Cir. 1993); Bermudez v. Duenas, 936 F. 2d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 1991); Gould v.
24 Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, 790 F. 2d 769, 772 (9th Cir. 1986); Scott v. Younger, 739
25 F. 2d 1464,1466 (9th Cir. 1984); Davis v. United States, 667 F. 2d 822, 824 (9th Cir. 1982). A district
26
1

1

court does have discretion to entertain a motion for reconsideration even though an appeal has been

2

taken, but only after an appellate mandate has issued. Gould, 790 F. 2d at 773 (“Once an appellate

3

mandate has issued, leave of… [the Court of Appeal] is not required for district court consideration of

4

Rule 60(b) motion”). Because the appeal is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit, this Court is without

5

jurisdiction to rule on Plaintiff’s motion.

6

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 6, 2014

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2