(HC)Garza v. Phillips

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGEL M. GARZA, Case No. 1:23-cv-01723 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL A DECISION 13 v. (Doc. 62) 14 TAMMY CAMPBELL,

15 Respondent. 16 17 Angel Garza is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 21, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion to compel the Court’s decision on his 19 petition, claiming the case is ripe for judgment. (Doc. 62.) However, the same date, Petitioner 20 filed a notice of appeal regarding the Court’s order denying his motion for evidentiary hearing. 21 (Doc. 63.) The Court processed his appeal, and the matter is currently pending before the Ninth 22 Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 64.) 23 The filing of a notice of appeal generally divests the district court of jurisdiction. See 24 Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam) (“The filing of 25 a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of 26 appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the 27 appeal.”). Consequently, this Court was divested of jurisdiction upon Petitioner’s filing of the 28 notice of appeal on July 21, 2025. 1 Even if Petitioner had not filed a notice of appeal, his motion to compel this Court’s 2 | decision would be denied. The Court is aware the Findings and Recommendations regarding the 3 | merits of the petition are pending. However, Plaintiff filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing 4 | only days after filing objections, which delayed any review of the merits pending resolution of 5 | that motion. Moreover, the Eastern District Court, one of the busiest district courts in the 6 | country, is operating under an ongoing judicial emergency and is burdened with a substantial 7 | backlog. Any de novo reviews, which are required after any objections are filed, are performed 8 || as soon as 1s practicable under the Court’s extraordinary caseload. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 9 | Petitioner’s motion to compel (Doc. 62) is DENIED. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 | Dated: _August 5, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28