Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01242/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01242-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICHARD D. DAVIS, III, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FOLSOM CORDOVA UNIFIED 

SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-01242-KJM-DAD 

ORDER 

On March 30, 2015, the court adopted the assigned magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations, dismissing the complaint. ECF No. 60. Judgment was entered on April 18, 

2015. ECF No. 62. Plaintiff Richard Davis III filed a notice of appeal on April 25, 2015. ECF 

No. 63. 

On September 17, 2015, Davis filed a “Motion for Judicial Review” in this court. 

ECF No. 69. His motion functionally challenges this court’s order dismissing the complaint. 

“The effective filing of a notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction from the district court to the court 

of appeals with respect to all matters involved in the appeal.” Masalosalo by Masalosalo v. 

Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 956 (9th Cir. 1983). This court could not exercise jurisdiction 

over the recently filed motion without essentially considering the same questions raised in 

Davis’s appeal. See id. (“[The rule against concurrent jurisdiction of district and appellate courts] 

Case 2:11-cv-01242-KJM-DAD Document 70 Filed 09/22/15 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 

2

is designed to avoid the confusion and inefficiency of two courts considering the same issues 

simultaneously.”). The court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 21, 2015. 

Case 2:11-cv-01242-KJM-DAD Document 70 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 2