Carla Cifelli v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, et al.

Opinion

WO

Carla Cifelli, No. CV-25-02504-PHX-KML

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, et al.,

Defendants. On October 16, 2025, plaintiff Carla Cifelli was granted leave to amend her complaint within 30 days. (Doc. 7.) Cifelli did not do so and on December 2, 2025, a judgment of dismissal was entered. (Doc. 8.) On January 2, 2026, Cifelli filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, a notice of appeal, and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Doc. 10, 12, 13.) Because judgment has been entered, Cifelli needed to have that judgment set aside under Rule 60(b) before seeking to amend. See BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, 605 U.S. 204, 210 (2025). Her reliance on the lenient standard of Rule 15 is misplaced because “Rules 60(b) and 15(a) apply at different stages of litigation and demand separate inquiries.” Id. at 213. In addition, “the filing of a 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.” United States v. PetroSaudi Oil Servs. (Venezuela) Ltd., 70 F.4th 1199, 1211 (9th Cir. 2023) (simplified). The final judgment is now on appeal, and this court is divested of jurisdiction to allow an untimely amendment of the complaint. 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Amend (Doc. 10) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Application (Doc. 13) is GRANTED. Dated this 8th day of January, 2026. V/s 2 f , WW pda M. VARA Honorable Krissa M. Lanham United States District Judge

_2-