Marinkovic v. Liberty Mutual Holding Company Incorporated

Opinion

MELVIN MARINKOVIC, Case No. 23-cv-1084-BAS

Plaintiff, ORDER STAYING AND v. ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE

Defendant. Plaintiff Melvin Marinkovic proceeding pro se, commenced this action and moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 1, 4.) On June 30, 2023, the Court issued an order denying the IFP motion without prejudice. (ECF No. 5.) The Court explained that the denial was without prejudice because Plaintiff used a standard form to complete his IFP motion, but the filing was missing a key page. (Id.) That page requires “Plaintiff to input information that would illuminate whether he has other streams of income—such as social security benefits, pensions, or public assistance—and/or liquid assets—namely money in bank accounts or other financial institutions.” (Id.) The Court gave Plaintiff several weeks to either pay the filing fee or submit adequate proof of his inability to do so. (Id.) Plaintiff instead filed a Notice of Appeal. (ECF No. 6.) Generally, “[t]he filing of a notice of appeal ‘confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court 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) (quoting United States v. Ortega-Lopez, 988 F.2d 70, 72 (9th Cir. 1993)). “This general divestment is a ‘judge-made doctrine designed to avoid the confusion and waste of time that might flow from putting the same issues before two courts at the same time.’” Jd. (quoting Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Com. Realty Projects, Inc., 309 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th 2002)). This case cannot proceed until Plaintiff's IFP status is resolved or the filing fee is Plaintiff's appeal involves those issues. Hence, in light of the appeal, this case 1s STAYED, and the Clerk of Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the matter. ) DATED: October 5, 2023 Lin A (Lyohaa 6 United States District Judge