Williams v. Ortega

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 3:18-cv-00547-LAB-MDD CDCR #AG-2394, 12 ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO Plaintiff, 13 STAY CASE PENDING vs. INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 14 O. ORTEGA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 The Court on November 4, 2019 dismissed certain claims against defendants 23 Melgoza and Kimani with prejudice, and one claim against Kimani without prejudice and 24 with leave to amend. The Court gave Williams 21 days to amend the claim against Kimani 25 that was dismissed without prejudice. Claims against other Defendants remain pending. 26 Williams then filed a notice of appeal, along with a request to stay the case until the 27 appeal is adjudicated. (Docket no. 34.) Ordinarily, a notice of appeal divests the Court of 28 jurisdiction over the matters appealed. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 1 || U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam). But a notice of appeal from a nonappealable interlocutory 2 || order does not divest the Court of jurisdiction. Estate of Conners v. Meredith v. O’Connor, 3 |16 F.3d 656, 658 (9% Cir. 1983); Ruby v. Secretary of the Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9® Cir. 4 || 1966) (en banc). 5 The Court’s order requiring Williams to amend the claim that was dismissed without 6 || prejudice remains in effect, except that the Court extends the time by an additional 21 7 ||calendar days. If he does not amend within the time permitted, the Court will treat that 8 ||claim as abandoned. The motion to stay is DENIED. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1] 12 |}Dated: November 20, 2019 / Mb / 4. ‘4, MWY 13 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 14 Chief United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 oo