Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01741/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01741-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:19-cv-01741-LAB-MDD

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

ROBERT SNYDER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-01741-LAB-MDD

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR 

CONTINUANCE 

[ECF No. 14]

On December 5, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff Robert Snyder’s Motion for a 

Temporary Restraining Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b), and simultaneously 

dismissed his Complaint sua sponte for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A. See ECF No. 9. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend and ordered him to 

do so no later than January 21, 2020. Id. at 9. Instead, on December 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed 

a Notice of Appeal. See ECF No. 10. His appeal was assigned USCA Case No. 19-56521, 

and a Time Schedule Order was issued on December 30, 2019. See ECF Nos. 11‒12. Thus, 

as it stands, Plaintiff’s appeal remains pending in the Ninth Circuit.

On January 21, 2020, however, Plaintiff submitted an “Ex Parte Application for 

Continuance” with the Clerk of this Court. See ECF No. 14. In it, he admits he has “six 

ongoing cases,” claims “most of [his] time and energy is consumed by custody harassing 

him,” and acknowledges “[t]his case is currently under review by the 9th Circuit Court of 

Case 3:19-cv-01741-LAB-DEB Document 15 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-01741-LAB-MDD

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

Appeals.” Id. at 2. Therefore, Plaintiff requests the Court “put the matter over until the 

conclusion of the [a]ppellate proceedings,” because this case involves just “one of the many 

deadlines [he] is burdened by,”1 and “if the appeal is favorable to [him] [] an amended 

complaint may be unnecessary.” Id.

While a Notice of Appeal typically divests the district court of jurisdiction over the 

order or action challenged on appeal, dismissal with leave to amend is not usually 

considered an appealable Order. See e.g., United States v. Garner, 663 F.2d 834, 837 (9th

Cir. 1981). But there are rare exceptions. It is also not clear from Plaintiff’s Notice of 

Appeal whether he is challenging the dismissal of his Complaint, the denial of his TRO, or 

both. See Ruby v. Secretary of U.S. Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1966) (noting that 

“Where the deficiency in a notice of appeal, by reason of untimeliness, lack of essential 

recitals, or reference to a non-appealable order, is clear to the district court, it may disregard 

the purported notice of appeal and proceed with the case, knowing that it has not been 

deprived of jurisdiction.”). Ordinarily, an appeal from a TRO is also not immediately 

appealable, see Religious Tech. Ctr. of Church of Scientology Int’l v. Scott, 869 F.3d 1306, 

1308 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)), but if the denial of a TRO “effectively 

decide[s] the merits of the case,” or is tantamount to the denial of a preliminary injunction 

it can be. Id. (citations omitted).

///

 

1 The Court notes that even if it retained jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s request for an 

extension of time to comply with the deadline it previously set for amendment, the reasons 

he has offered in support are unconvincing. See e.g., Forte v. Jones, 2014 WL 7069447, at 

*3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2014) (noting that plaintiff’s “decision to engage in multiple 

simultaneous lawsuits is a matter of choice and the demands on his time and attention in 

one action do not constitute an excuse for deadlines missed in another action.”); Haywood 

v. Bedatsky, 2007 WL 1412523, *5 (D. Ariz. May 11, 2007) (finding extension of time to 

serve defendants unwarranted because while plaintiff was proceeding pro se, he “[wa]s not 

a novice litigator,” and “had filed at least three previous lawsuits against many of the[] 

same [d]efendants.”).

Case 3:19-cv-01741-LAB-DEB Document 15 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-cv-01741-LAB-MDD

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

Thus, based on the record before it, the Court is not convinced it retains jurisdiction 

to grant the relief Plaintiff seeks and therefore DENIES his Ex Parte Application for

Continuance [ECF No. 14] in light of the Notice of Appeal still pending in USCA Case 

No. 19‒56521. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2020

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01741-LAB-DEB Document 15 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3