Rushdan v. Perbula et al
Filing
84
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/13/10 ORDERING that unless the appellate court remands to the district court, this court is without jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs September 3, 2010 filings.(Dillon, M)
<![CDATA[
(PC) Rushdan v. Perbula, et al
Doc. 84
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. T. PERBULA, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff is a state prisoner. On September 3, 2010, plaintiff filed notices concerning difficulties with legal mail resulting in the delayed filing of plaintiff's objections to the June 16, 2010 findings and recommendations. Plaintiff also filed a copy of objections to findings and recommendations that were signed by plaintiff on June 24, 2010. However, on August 31, 2010, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction. Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir. 1984) (citations omitted). Unless the appellate court remands to the district court, this //// //// //// //// ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SALADIN RUSHDAN, Plaintiff, No. 2:06-cv-0729 GEB KJN P
Dockets.Justia.com
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
court is without jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's September 3, 2010 filings. See Bruce v. United States, 759 F.2d 755, 757 (9th Cir. 1985). DATED: September 13, 2010
_____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
rush0729.lj
]]>
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?
