Woodward v. Bennett

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 19, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-05540
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 ROBERT LUCAS WOODWARD, CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05540-JHC 8

ORDER 9 Petitioner, 10 v. 11 JASON BENNETT,

12 Respondent. 13

14 On February 19, 2025, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of 15 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the Court’s December 31, 2024, order denying Petitioners’ 16 Motions for Relief from Judgment. Dkt. # 14. The same day, Petitioner filed a motion to 17 appoint counsel for the purposes of his appearance before this Court. Dkt. # 15. 18 Generally, “the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction over 19 those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 20 1997) (citing Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Ortho. Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379 (1985); Nat. Res. Def. 21 Council, Inc. v. Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Once a notice of appeal 22 is filed, the district court is divested of jurisdiction over the matters being appealed.”) Thus, this 23 Court lacks jurisdiction over the motion to appoint counsel or any other post-judgment motion 24 1 that involves the issues subsumed within the pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit until and unless 2 the Ninth Circuit issues its Mandate. 3 Further, on January 22, 2025, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why a vexatious

4 litigant bar order should not be issued. Dkt. # 13. Petitioner has failed to show any cause. See 5 generally Dkt. 6 Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the motion to appoint counsel, Dkt. # 15, for lack of 7 jurisdiction. And the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to strike any new motion by Petitioner, unless it 8 is related to an appeal, as this case is now closed. 9 Dated this 19th day of February, 2025. 10 11 a John H. Chun 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24