FERNANDO PADRON RODRIGUEZ V. E.K. MCDANIEL, ET AL.

Filing 83

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall transmit the Motion for Substitution of Respondent 82 to the Court of Appeals for its consideration. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 11/3/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC) Modified on 11/4/2011 to reflect that a copy of this Order was electronically sent to USCA. (MLC).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 FERNANDO PADRON RODRIGUEZ, 12 Petitioner, 13 vs. 14 E.K. MCDANIEL, et al., 15 Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 3:02-cv-00236-ECR-VPC ORDER 16 This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which 17 petitioner, a state prisoner, is proceeding with counsel. The matter is currently on appeal at the Ninth 18 Circuit Court of Appeals as case number 09-17171. On October 31, 2011, respondents filed a motion 19 for substitution of respondents (ECF No. 82) indicating that Renee Baker was the proper respondent. 20 Because this Court lost jurisdiction over the matter upon the docketing of the appeal, this 21 motion shall be transferred to the Court of Appeals for its consideration. Mayweathers v. Newland 258 22 F.3d 930, 935 (9th Cir. 2001) citing Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 23 373, 379, 105 S.Ct. 1327, 84 L.Ed.2d 274 (1985) (“In general, filing of a notice of appeal confers 24 jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of control over those aspects of the case 25 involved in the appeal.”). 26 1 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk shall transmit the Motion for Substitution of Respondent (ECF No. 82) to the Court of Appeals for its consideration. 3 4 DATED this 3rd day of November, 2011. 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?