(PC) Murillo v. Holland

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOAQUIN MURILLO, No. 1:15-cv-0266-DC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 K. HOLLAND, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action filed 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a motion for a bench trial and/or a settlement 19 conference in this case along with a request for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 163. 20 Before the court could rule on plaintiff’s pending motion, defendants Holland and Gutierrez filed 21 a notice of appeal of the court’s December 5, 2024 order denying them qualified immunity. ECF 22 No. 164. Based on the pending appeal, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a 23 trial and/or settlement conference. ECF No. 167. 24 The filing of defendants’ notice of appeal automatically divests the court of jurisdiction to 25 proceed to trial on the issues subsumed within the appeal. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer 26 Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (stating that “[t]he filing of a notice of appeal is an event of 27 jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district 28 court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”). Therefore, the court 1 | lacks jurisdiction to grant plaintiff the requested relief. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff's motion for a bench trial and/or a settlement conference (ECF No. 163) is 4 || denied without prejudice to renewal following the resolution of the pending appeal. 5 2. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 163) is denied without 6 || prejudice. 7 || DATED: May 21, 2025 md ° SEAN C. RIORDAN 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28