Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01687/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01687-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMON MURILLO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv1687 BEN (BGS)

ORDER READOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

OVER PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTIONS

vs.

P. FLOURNOY, et al.,

Defendants.

On February 27, 2013, the Court adopted in full the Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge in this action and granted

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 54.) Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R

were filed on March 4, 2013. Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis. He signed and dated the objections February 15, 2013 and purportedly

gave the document to a correctional officer on February 18, 2013, which was the

deadline for filing objections. Under the prisoner mailbox rule, Plaintiff’s objections

were timely. See Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2009).

Before the Court could address these objections, Plaintiff filed an appeal to

the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 60.) Ordinarily, the filing of a notice of appeal divests

a district court of further jurisdiction over the case. See Pope v. Sav. Bank of Puget

Sound, 850 F.2d 1345, 1347 (9th Cir. 1988). However, when the appeal is from an

- 1 - 11cv1687

Case 3:11-cv-01687-BEN-BGS Document 64 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

unappealable order, the district court may disregard the purported notice of appeal

and proceed with the case. See Estate of Conners v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th

Cir. 1993).

Plaintiff’s appeal was premature. The Magistrate Judge’s R&R, which the

Court adopted in full, gave Plaintiff leave to amend some claims. Because there was

no final order in this case, the Court retains jurisdiction and is free to consider the

objections submitted by Plaintiff. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections. 

Finding them without merit, the Court modifies its order of February 27, 2013 to

READOPT the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is

granted 45 days in which to file and serve an amended complaint which addresses

the deficiencies of pleading for claims which Plaintiff has been granted leave to

amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 19, 2013

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

- 2 - 11cv1687

Case 3:11-cv-01687-BEN-BGS Document 64 Filed 03/19/13 Page 2 of 2