Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06408/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06408-34/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATHRYN HOGAN, et al., CASE NO. CV-F-03-6408 LJO WMW

 

Plaintiffs, ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

PENDING OUTCOME OF APPEAL;

ORDER VACATING ALL PENDING

DATES

vs.

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPUTY MICHAEL ROBINSON,

et al.,

Defendants.

 / 

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 25, 2007. In the notice of appeal, Plaintiffs

“note” that the appeal has the effect of staying the trial proceedings. Plaintiffs did not,

however, file a motion to stay the proceedings in this case, nor is a motion to stay the

proceedings pending. Plaintiffs have further refused to follow a court order to attend the

deposition, have not responded to the motions for summary judgment or the motions to

dismiss, and have indicated to defense counsel their unwillingness to cooperate in the

preparation of the Joint Pre-trial Statement, which is due on June 6, 2007, on their belief that

filing of the appeal stayed these proceedings.

The Court does find that a question of jurisdiction has been raised with the filing of the

interlocutory appeal. “The filing of a notice appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance–it

Case 1:03-cv-06408-LJO-GSA Document 243 Filed 06/04/07 Page 1 of 3
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

confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over

those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459

U.S. 56, 58 (1982). However, "[a]bsent a stay, an appeal seeking review of collateral orders

does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction over other proceedings in the case, and an

appeal of an interlocutory order does not ordinarily deprive the district court of jurisdiction

except with regard to the matters that are the subject of the appeal. Britton v. Co-op Banking

Group, 916 F.2d 1405, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation Sections

25.11, 25.16 (2d ed.)). Thus, before the Court goes forward with the case, it must determine

whether Plaintiffs are seeking review of a "collateral order" of the type discussed in Britton.

If so, this Court and parties could proceed as planned. If this type of order is similar to the

order as described in Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, however,

jurisdiction of all proceedings in this case are called into question and proper prudence

suggests this Court refrain from taking further action. 

The order from which Plaintiffs appeal includes a motion to appoint counsel. In

Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, the Ninth Circuit found that an order

denying a civil rights plaintiff appointed counsel was final, in that they are

 “too important to be denied review,” and that they are “separable from, and

collateral to,” the cause itself.” Cohen, 337 U.S. at 546, 69 S.Ct. at 1226. There is

a risk that “ ‘crucial collateral claims (will) be lost ...’ ” Firestone, 449 U.S. 368, 101

S.Ct. at 674 (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 331 n.11, 96 S.Ct. at 901

n.11), unless the right to appeal from such orders is recognized, and that

immediate review is required “so as not to cause ... potentially irreparable

injuries to be suffered” in those cases. Firestone, id. We thus hold that denying

Title VII plaintiffs appointed counsel are immediately appealable under section

1291. (Id. at 1320)

While Bradshaw dealt with a Title VII case only, it is possible that the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals would find the Bradshaw ruling applicable in the present civil rights case.

Further, it is possible that the current discovery motion and dispositive motions are “crucial

collateral” issues to the undecided issue of the appointment of counsel. Considering this

looming jurisdictional question, the Court finds the best course of action is to take no action

until this the Court of Appeals resolves the appeal. While this Court has an interest in keeping

Case 1:03-cv-06408-LJO-GSA Document 243 Filed 06/04/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

its trial date intact, it is also against judicial efficiency to try cases more than once. Therefore,

the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

(I) This case shall be STAYED until the determination of the pending appeal;

(II) All pending dates are VACATED until further notice, including

(A) the Pre-trial conference currently set for June 12, 2007, 

(B) the Motion to Dismiss Hearing currently set for June 22, 2007, 

(C) the Motion for Summary Judgment hearing currently set for July 9, 2007,

and 

(D) the trial currently set for July 23, 2007; and

(III) The Court SETS a status conference in 90 days from the date of this order, on

September 7, 2007 at 8:15 a.m. in Department 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06408-LJO-GSA Document 243 Filed 06/04/07 Page 3 of 3