Filed: Jun. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 12, 2012
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration will be dismissed, as his notice of appeal has divested this court of jurisdiction to consider the motion. On May 7, 2012, this court denied petitioner's habeas corpus petition, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. The Clerk entered judgment pursuant to the order that same day. On May 31, 2012, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal and a "Request for Certificate of Appealability." The filing of
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration will be dismissed, as his notice of appeal has divested this court of jurisdiction to consider the motion. On May 7, 2012, this court denied petitioner's habeas corpus petition, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. The Clerk entered judgment pursuant to the order that same day. On May 31, 2012, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal and a "Request for Certificate of Appealability." The filing of t..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration will be dismissed, as his notice of appeal has divested this court of jurisdiction to consider the motion.
On May 7, 2012, this court denied petitioner's habeas corpus petition, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. The Clerk entered judgment pursuant to the order that same day. On May 31, 2012, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal and a "Request for Certificate of Appealability."
The filing of the Notice of Appeal "confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Small v. Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Ass'n Local 200, 611 F.3d 483, 495 (9th Cir. 2010), citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam).1
Since the request for a Certificate of Appealability and the Motion for Reconsideration directly relate to matters on appeal, this court has no jurisdiction to consider them, and accordingly, both are DISMISSED (Dkt. Nos. 35 & 38).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
