Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02856/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02856-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Douglas D. Yokois,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 16-02856-PHX-DGC (MHB)

ORDER

Plaintiff Douglas Yokois is currently confined in Arizona state prison. He brought 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Docs. 1, 28. On September 17, 

2019, the Court granted Defendants’ summary judgment motion and entered a final 

judgment. Docs. 228, 229. One month later, Plaintiff filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions 

and a notice of appeal from the judgment. Docs. 233, 236. Defendants seek to clarify 

whether a response to the motion is required. Doc. 242. For reasons stated below, the 

Court will terminate the motion for sanctions without prejudice to refiling after the 

appellate proceedings have concluded. Defendants are not required to file a response to 

the motion.

The filing of a notice of appeal generally “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.” Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379 (1985) 

(citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). “The Ninth 

Case 2:16-cv-02856-DGC Document 243 Filed 05/20/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

Circuit has explained this divestiture rule as one of judicial economy ‘designed to avoid 

the confusion and waste of time that might flow from putting the same issues before two 

courts at the same time.’” Pinson v. Estrada, No. CV 18-00535-TUC-RM, 2020 WL 

2308484, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 8, 2020) (quoting Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. 

Comm Realty Project, Inc., 309 F.3d 1113, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002)). “The operative 

question in determining jurisdiction is whether ‘the district court would be deciding the 

same issues as the appeals court.’” Id. (quoting Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th 

Cir. 1997)).

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions argues that Defendants submitted certain 

declarations with their summary judgment motion for “(1) the improper purposes of 

harassment and to cause unnecessary expense to Plaintiff; (2) factual contentions that do 

not have, or are unlikely to have, evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for 

further investigation or discovery; and (3) denials of factual contentions unwarranted by 

the evidence.” Doc. 233 at 2. While Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions and requests that 

Defendants’ counsel and her office be reprimanded, he also requests that he be granted 

“summary judgment . . . on each of the issues in which aforenamed persons or their 

attorneys are found to have violated [Rule] 11(b).” Id. at 18.

Deciding the motion for sanctions would require the Court to consider “aspects of 

the case involved in the appeal.” Marrese, 470 U.S. at 379. Plaintiff asserts that the 

summary judgment declarations include factual contentions without evidentiary support, 

and requests that summary judgment be granted in his favor. Doc. 233 at 2, 18. The Court 

concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to rule on the motion for sanctions. See Rienhardt v. 

Ryan, No. CV-03-00290-TUC-DCB, 2016 WL 1171124, at *5 (D. Ariz. Mar. 25, 2016)

(“[Petitoner’s] arguments are pending before the appellate court . . . and thus this Court is 

divested of authority to rule on them.”). Moreover, “it would be an inefficient use of 

judicial resources for both this Court and the Ninth Circuit to consider the same issues 

simultaneously with the looming risk of inconsistent rulings.” SolarCity Corp. v. Salt River 

Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., No. CV-15-00374-PHX-DLR, 2016 WL 

Case 2:16-cv-02856-DGC Document 243 Filed 05/20/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

5109887, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 20, 2016). The Court will terminate the motion for sanctions 

without prejudice to refiling after the appellate proceedings have concluded and the Ninth 

Circuit’s mandate has issued.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions (Doc. 233) is terminated without 

prejudice to refiling after the appellate proceedings have concluded and the mandate 

has issued.

2. Defendants’ motion for clarification (Doc. 242) is granted. Defendants are 

not required to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion.

Dated this 19th day of May, 2020.

Case 2:16-cv-02856-DGC Document 243 Filed 05/20/20 Page 3 of 3