Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00149/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00149-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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 Although the clear intent of the motion is to change the outcome of Defendant’s

summary judgment motion, Plaintiff did not specify whether his motion was brought pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). Since the motion was filed more than ten days

after the entry of judgment, a Rule 59(e) motion would have been untimely. Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is construed as a Rule 60(b) motion. See Straw v. Bowen, 866 F.2d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 1989).

05cv0419

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS G. CALABRESE,

Plaintiff,

v.

GORDON R. ENGLAND, Secretary of

the Navy,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv0149-L(BLM)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION TO

CONSIDER THE MOTION

[Docket # 43]

On March 14, 2006, the Court issued an order granting Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment and entered judgment on the same day. On April 4, 2006, Plaintiff filed a document

styled as “T[]olling the Statutes of Limitations,” which the Court construed as a motion for

reconsideration of the summary judgment order.1

 For the reasons which follow, the Court finds

it lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s motion.

Case 3:05-cv-00149-L-BLM Document 64 Filed 10/27/06 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 If the Court had jurisdiction to consider the motion, it would not be inclined to

grant it. The motion is based on statute of limitations tolling arguments and evidence which

could have been presented in opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment motion. Plaintiff

does not explain why these arguments and evidence were not presented at that time. Even if the

Court were to conclude the statute of limitations should be tolled, Plaintiff does not address the

finding in the summary judgment order of lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

2 05cv0419

Generally, once a party files a notice of appeal, the district court is divested of jurisdiction

over any matter which is the subject matter of the appeal. Griggs v. Provident Consumer

Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). Plaintiff’s motion seeks reconsideration of the summary

judgment order, and the notice of appeal expressly pertains to that order. 

An exception to the general rule is provided in Rule 4(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, which provides that a district court retains the power to alter or amend

judgment when a notice of appeal has been filed. See id. at 59-60. Rule 4(a)(4) tolls the date

when the notice of appeal takes effect until the district court rules on a “motion listed in Rule

4(a)(4)(A).” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(a)(4)(B)(I). This exception applies to a Rule 60(b) motion

only “if the motion is filed no later than 10 days after the judgment is entered. Fed. R. App.

Proc. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). If the motion is filed within this time period, it renders the notice of appeal

ineffective to confer jurisdiction on the appellate court until the district court rules on the

motion. Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(a)(4)(B)(I); see also Miller v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 300 F.3d 1061,

1064 (9th Cir. 2002). However, Plaintiff’s motion was filed more than ten days after entry of

judgment, and therefore did not serve to delay the effectiveness of his notice of appeal. See

Miller, 300 F.3d at 1064. Accordingly, this Court was divested of jurisdiction when the notice

of appeal was filed.

Under these circumstances, the proper procedure is to “file[] a motion asking the district

court to indicate its willingness to entertain a Rule 60(b) motion.” Carriger v. Lewis, 971 F.2d

329, 332 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 586 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Following a ruling on this request, the party should, “move [the appellate] court, if appropriate,

for remand of the case.” Williams, 384 F.3d at 586; see also Carriger, 971 F.2d at 332. Plaintiff

did not observe this procedure, and therefore he did not revest this Court with jurisdiction to

consider his motion.2

 See Williams, 384 F.3d at 586. Any substantive order on Plaintiff’s

Case 3:05-cv-00149-L-BLM Document 64 Filed 10/27/06 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 05cv0419

motion would be void for lack of jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 27, 2006

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. BARBARA L. MAJOR

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-00149-L-BLM Document 64 Filed 10/27/06 Page 3 of 3