Long v. Amazon.com Services LLC

Opinion

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 8 MICHAEL E. LONG, Case No. C23-209RSL

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION 10 v. FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

12 Defendant. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Judicial Review” (Dkt. 15 # 48). The Court, having reviewed the submissions of the parties and the remainder of the 16 record, DENIES the motion. 17 The Court lacks jurisdiction to address plaintiff’s motion. “Once a notice of appeal is 18 filed, the district court is divested of jurisdiction over the matters being appealed.” Nat. Res. Def. 19 Council, Inc. v. Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001). On April 29, 2024, this 20 Court entered an order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing 21 plaintiff’s discrimination claims as untimely because plaintiff filed his lawsuit more than ninety 22 days after receiving the Right to Sue Notice. Dkt. # 44; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1). On May 21, 23 2024, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal from this Court’s order, Dkts. # 47, and the present 24 motion seeking that this Court declare the “requirement of having to file a [claim] of racial 25 discrimination with the agency before having access to court” as unconstitutional, Dkt. # 48.1 26

27 1 Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal was docketed first. See Dkt. # 47. Thus, the Court finds that it lost 28 1 Because the subject matter pending appeal is closely related to the subject matter of the present 2 motion, this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the issue. See Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 242 3 F.3d at 1166. 4 For all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for judicial review (Dkt. # 48) is 6 8 9 DATED this 13th day of August, 2024. 10 11 A

12 Robert S. Lasnik 13 United States District Judge

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 Inc., 242 F.3d at 1166 (holding that the purpose of the rule “is to promote judicial economy and avoid 28