Durand v. Muaro

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 ROBERTO DURAND, Case No. 3:22-cv-00338-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 MUARO, 9 Defendant. 10 11 I. DISCUSSION 12 This action began with a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by state 13 prisoner and pro se plaintiff Roberto Durand. (ECF No. 1-1.) Following Durand’s failure 14 to either pay the filing fee or properly apply to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court 15 dismissed this case without prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court entered judgment 16 accordingly. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) Durand appealed, and the Ninth Circuit docketed an 17 appellate case (No. 22-16536). (ECF Nos. 8, 9.) 18 “As a general rule, ‘the filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional 19 significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court 20 of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.’” Est. of Conners by 21 Meredith v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993), superseded on other grounds by 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(D) (internal brackets omitted) (quoting Griggs v. Provident 23 Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). Although Durand’s appeal is still pending, 24 he has filed two applications to proceed in forma pauperis in this closed action. (ECF Nos. 25 10, 11.) The Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Durand’s applications. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 |/ I. CONCLUSION 2 It is therefore ordered that Durand’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis 3 || (ECF Nos. 10, 11) are denied for lack of jurisdiction. 4 It is further ordered that Durand must file any documents related to his appeal in 5 || his appellate case, not in this closed case. 6 DATED THIS 20" Day of December 2022.

8 MIRANDA M. DU 9 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28