Anderson vs. Voong, et al.,

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 08/24/17 ordering that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 15 , construed as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to FRCP 60(b) is disregarded for lack of jurisdiction. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TUANJA EDWARD ANDERSON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2: 16-cv-2948 KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

M. VOONG, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 16, 2017, this action was dismissed and judgment was entered.

19

(ECF Nos. 8, 9.) On March 27, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, which is now pending

20

before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 10.)

21

On July 5, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the March 16, 2017 order

22

dismissing his case. (ECF No. 15.) The undersigned construes plaintiff’s motion as a request for

23

relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

24

Generally “[t]he filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it

25

confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those

26

aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459

27

U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam). However, “[u]nder Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a), a Rule 60(b)

28

motion is ‘pending’ and suspends the effect of a notice of appeal when the motion is filed ‘no
1

1

later than 28 days after the judgment is entered.’ Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi).” Lasenbby v.

2

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2015 WL 3505320, at *1 n.5 (D. Nev. June 2, 2015) (citing United

3

Nat'l Ins. v. R & D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001) (notice of appeal did not

4

divest district court of jurisdiction because motion for reconsideration was pending).)

5
6
7

Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment was filed more than 28 days after the judgment
was entered. Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction to consider this motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF

8

No. 15), construed as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

9

Procedure 60(b), is disregarded for lack of jurisdiction.

10

Dated: August 24, 2017

11
12
13
14
An2948.ord
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2