Kinnard v. Navarro

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KENNETH KINNARD, Case No. 22-cv-02534-JSW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS ? . Re: Dkt. No. 39, 40, 41 10 STEVE NAVARRO, et al., 11 Defendants. L 13 Now before the Court for consideration are Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion filed on June 30, 14 || 2023, and Rule 19 motion for joinder filed on July 10, 2023. Plaintiffs motions were filed after 3 || the notice of appeal was filed, and this Court thus lacks jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiffs a 16 motions. Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 586 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Estrada v. Clines,

17 | 559 F. App’x 652, 652-53 (9th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions are DENIED for lack 5 18 || of jurisdiction. Defendant’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 19 IT ISSO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: August 31, 2023 / | / 21 ahtege ee JEFFREY /§/ WHIFE 22 United Stites Di ict Judge 23 ; 24 25 26 27 28