DAVIS v. FOLSOM CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 2:11-cv-01242-KJM-DAD. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150923840
Visitors: 17
Filed: Sep. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 21, 2015
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . On March 30, 2015, the court adopted the assigned magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, dismissing the complaint. ECF No. 60. Judgment was entered on April 18, 2015. ECF No. 62. Plaintiff Richard Davis III filed a notice of appeal on April 25, 2015. ECF No. 63. On September 17, 2015, Davis filed a "Motion for Judicial Review" in this court. ECF No. 69. His motion functionally challenges this court's order dismissing the complaint. "Th
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . On March 30, 2015, the court adopted the assigned magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, dismissing the complaint. ECF No. 60. Judgment was entered on April 18, 2015. ECF No. 62. Plaintiff Richard Davis III filed a notice of appeal on April 25, 2015. ECF No. 63. On September 17, 2015, Davis filed a "Motion for Judicial Review" in this court. ECF No. 69. His motion functionally challenges this court's order dismissing the complaint. "The..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
On March 30, 2015, the court adopted the assigned magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, dismissing the complaint. ECF No. 60. Judgment was entered on April 18, 2015. ECF No. 62. Plaintiff Richard Davis III filed a notice of appeal on April 25, 2015. ECF No. 63.
On September 17, 2015, Davis filed a "Motion for Judicial Review" in this court. ECF No. 69. His motion functionally challenges this court's order dismissing the complaint. "The effective filing of a notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction from the district court to the court of appeals with respect to all matters involved in the appeal." Masalosalo by Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 956 (9th Cir. 1983). This court could not exercise jurisdiction over the recently filed motion without essentially considering the same questions raised in Davis's appeal. See id. ("[The rule against concurrent jurisdiction of district and appellate courts] is designed to avoid the confusion and inefficiency of two courts considering the same issues simultaneously."). The court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
