Smith v. Ford

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 22, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00501
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4| WILLIE T. SMITH, Case No. 3:20-CV-0501-JAD-CLB 5 Plaintiff, | ORDER 6 V. AARON FORD, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the screening order. (ECF No. 11). The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance - it confers jurisdiction on the

42 court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case 43| involved in the appeal. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (citing United States v. Hitchmon, 587 F.2d 1357 (5th Circ. 1979)). The rule is 15 designed to avoid the confusion and waste of time that might flow from putting the same issues before two courts at the same time. Kern Oil v. Refining Co., 840 F.2d at 734.

18 Therefore, this case is hereby STAYED until the conclusion of the appeal. Plaintiff's 49 | motion to be excluded from mediation (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED until the conclusion of his appeal. a1 Plaintiff also filed a motion to dismiss asking the court to dismiss his complaint so that he may appeal the screening order. (ECF No. 10). This is procedurally improper as

DA granting the motion would end plaintiffs case in its entirety including his appeal. 25 Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) is DENIED without prejudice. DATED: June 22, 2021. » 27 wo he