Williams v. Ortega, 3:18-cv-00547-LAB-MDD. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20191125988
Visitors: 25
Filed: Nov. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO STAY CASE PENDING INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL LARRY ALAN BURNS , Chief District Judge . The Court on November 4, 2019 dismissed certain claims against defendants Melgoza and Kimani with prejudice, and one claim against Kimani without prejudice and with leave to amend. The Court gave Williams 21 days to amend the claim against Kimani that was dismissed without prejudice. Claims against other Defendants remain pending. Williams then filed a notice of appeal, along with a re
Summary: ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO STAY CASE PENDING INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL LARRY ALAN BURNS , Chief District Judge . The Court on November 4, 2019 dismissed certain claims against defendants Melgoza and Kimani with prejudice, and one claim against Kimani without prejudice and with leave to amend. The Court gave Williams 21 days to amend the claim against Kimani that was dismissed without prejudice. Claims against other Defendants remain pending. Williams then filed a notice of appeal, along with a req..
More
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO STAY CASE PENDING INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
LARRY ALAN BURNS, Chief District Judge.
The Court on November 4, 2019 dismissed certain claims against defendants Melgoza and Kimani with prejudice, and one claim against Kimani without prejudice and with leave to amend. The Court gave Williams 21 days to amend the claim against Kimani that was dismissed without prejudice. Claims against other Defendants remain pending.
Williams then filed a notice of appeal, along with a request to stay the case until the appeal is adjudicated. (Docket no. 34.) Ordinarily, a notice of appeal divests the Court of jurisdiction over the matters appealed. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam). But a notice of appeal from a nonappealable interlocutory order does not divest the Court of jurisdiction. Estate of Conners v. Meredith v. O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1983); Ruby v. Secretary of the Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1966) (en banc).
The Court's order requiring Williams to amend the claim that was dismissed without prejudice remains in effect, except that the Court extends the time by an additional 21 calendar days. If he does not amend within the time permitted, the Court will treat that claim as abandoned. The motion to stay is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
