Antoine v. Cross

Ninth Circuit

Antoine v. Cross

56 F. App'x 388

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 19, 2003

DocketNo. 02-55642; D.C. No. CV-99-02299-SVW

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 56 F. App'x 388 (Antoine v. Cross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Antoine v. Cross, 56 F. App'x 388 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Paul Eric Antoine appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his motion to withdraw from an agreement settling his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials confiscated his inhaler during an asthma attack. We lack jurisdiction because the district court’s order is not final. See Nat’l Dis-trib. Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 117 F.3d 432, 433 (9th Cir.1997). A notice of appeal from a nonappealable order is a nullity and does not transfer jurisdiction to the court of appeals. See Estate of Con-ners v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 659 (9th Cir.1993). Accordingly, the district court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on Antoine’s motion to reconsider the order denying his motion to withdraw from the settlement agreement. The district court can and should rule on the pending motion to reconsider.

DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Paul Eric Antoine appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his motion to withdraw from an agreement settling his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials confiscated his inhaler during an asthma attack. We lack jurisdiction because the district court’s order is not final. See Nat’l Dis-trib. Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 117 F.3d 432, 433 (9th Cir.1997). A notice of appeal from a nonappealable order is a nullity and does not transfer jurisdiction to the court of appeals. See Estate of Con-ners v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 659 (9th Cir.1993). Accordingly, the district court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on Antoine’s motion to reconsider the order denying his motion to withdraw from the settlement agreement. The district court can and should rule on the pending motion to reconsider.

DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 F. App'x 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antoine-v-cross-ca9-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack