Lai v. Copenhaver
Filing
35
ORDER DISMISSING 34 Motion for Certificate of Appealability signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/22/2016. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DENNIS CHAN LAI,
Petitioner,
12
13
Case No. 1:14-cv-01775-LJO-EPG-HC
ORDER DISMISSING MOTION FOR
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
v.
(ECF No. 34)
14
15
PAUL COPENHAVER,
Respondent.
16
17
On November 10, 2014, Petitioner Dennis Chan Lai, a federal prisoner proceeding pro
18 se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). On
19 October 21, 2015, the Court dismissed the petition and declined to issue a certificate of
20 appealability. (ECF No. 27). Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on
21 January 8, 2016. (ECF No. 29, 30). On January 21, 2016, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, and
22 the appeal was processed to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF Nos. 31, 32). On February 12, 2016,
23 Petitioner filed the instant motion for certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 34).
24
“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers
25 jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects
26 of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58
27 (1982). Here, the notice of appeal was filed on January 21, 2016, and the Court has been divested
28 of its jurisdiction over this case.
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for certificate of
2 appealability (ECF No. 34) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
February 22, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?