Martha v. Contra Costa County
ORDER DENYING POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS 22 26 27 28 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/21/2014)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GEORGE N. MARTHA,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
No. C 13-5401 SI (pr)
ORDER DENYING POSTJUDGMENT MOTIONS
ICE GOVERNMENT; et al.,
Petitioner filed this pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus, apparently to challenge a
final order of the United States Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“I.C.E.”)
that he be removed from the United States and sent to Israel. In an order filed December 10,
2013, the court explained that the REAL ID Act of 2005 made the United States Court of
Appeals the sole judicial body able to review challenges to final orders of removal, and
dismissed the petition without prejudice to petitioner filing a petition for review in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court later denied petitioner's motion for
reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a notice of appeal.
This matter is now before the court for consideration of petitioner's several post-judgment
motions. Petitioner's motion to terminate the I.C.E. case (Docket # 22) and motion for jury trial
on the dismissal (Docket # 26) are DENIED because the existence of the pending appeal divests
this court of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal. See Griggs v.
Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (it is "generally understood that a
federal district court and a federal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over
a case simultaneously"); Pope v. Savings Bank of Puget Sound, 850 F.2d 1345, 1347 (9th Cir.
1988). Assuming arguendo that this court retains jurisdiction to decide the collateral matters of
a motion for appointment of counsel and for a fee waiver, the motions will be denied.
Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel (Docket # 27) is DENIED because the interests of justice
are not served by appointing counsel after a case has been dismissed. See 18 U.S.C. §
3006A(a)(2)(B) (appointment of counsel appropriate when "the court determines that the
interests of justice so require"). Petitioner's motion to waive fees (Docket # 28) is DENIED
because the court does not have authority to waive the filing fees for an appeal. The denial of
these motions is without prejudice to petitioner filing them again in the Ninth Circuit. All
further motions should be made to the Ninth Circuit while the appeal is pending.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 21, 2014
United States District Judge
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?