(PC)Calderon v. Allison et al

Filing 51

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/14/23 DENYING 47 48 49 and 50 Motions as the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's motions because plaintiff filed a notice appealing this court's dismissal of the case. Plaintiff is cautioned that any future filings made before the Ninth Circuit issues its decision may be disregarded. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Juan Carlos Calderon,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:21-cv-01896-KJM-CKD
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
K. Allison, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On August 28, 2023, this court dismissed plaintiff Juan Carlos Calderon’s fourth amended

18

complaint without leave to amend for failure to comply with a court order. Prior Order (Aug. 28,

19

2023), ECF No. 36. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Id. Plaintiff then

20

filed a letter asking the court to “stop ongoing corruption with abuse of power/authority.” Letter,

21

ECF No. 38. The court construed the letter as a motion to reconsider and denied the motion.

22

Prior Order (Aug. 31, 2023), ECF No. 39. An appeal of the court’s order dismissing the action is

23

pending before the Ninth Circuit. See Notice of Appeal, ECF Nos. 40, 41.

24

Plaintiff has now filed four separate motions: “Motion for Injunctive Equitable Relief,”

25

ECF No. 47, a second “Motion for Injunctive Equitable Relief,” ECF No. 48,

26

“Motion/Petition/Personal Legal Pleading for Justice,” ECF No. 49, and “New Motion for

27

Equitable Injunctive Relief,” ECF No. 50. Plaintiff has filed one or more of the same motions in

28

several other cases in this district. See, e.g., Calderon v. Bonta, No. 23-212 (E.D. Cal.), Calderon
1

1

v. Bonta, 23-1064 (E.D. Cal.), Calderon v. Bonta, 23-1065 (E.D. Cal.). The filings largely repeat

2

the allegations in plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint, which the court dismissed.

3

“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers

4

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

5

of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58

6

(1982). The court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff’s motions because plaintiff filed a notice

7

appealing this court’s dismissal of the case. Accordingly, the motions are denied. Plaintiff is

8

cautioned that any future filings made before the Ninth Circuit issues its decision may be

9

disregarded.

10

This order resolves ECF Nos. 47, 48, 49 and 50.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: November 14, 2023.

13

2