Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02543/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02543-7/pdf.json

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

---

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 Given that this court did not revoke plaintiff’s informa pauperis

status within the time frame set forth in the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeal’s Referral Notice, that statue “continue[s] automatically for

[plaintiff’s] appeal pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 24(a).” Ref. Not. (Doc. 77)

at 1. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John W. Farmer, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 09-2543-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Dana Youhas, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) _ )

On April 13, 2012, plaintiff pro se filed a Notice of

Appeal of this court’s dismissal order and judgment filed

concurrently therewith. Not. (Doc. 74). Contemporaneously

therewith plaintiff filed the pending “Motion for Appointment

of Counsel for Appeal of Judgement[.]” Mot. (Doc. 73). The

plaintiff inmate, who is proceeding in forma pauperis,1 asserts

that he requires appointment of appellate counsel “[i]n order

Case 2:09-cv-02543-RCB-SPL Document 80 Filed 05/18/12 Page 1 of 4
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 -

for justice to be served[.]” Id. at 1. Among other reasons,

plaintiff claims that he does not have “any clue as to what is

going to be required during the course of the appeal.” Id. at

1. Plaintiff is especially concerned about his inability “to

complete the appeal process if th[at] [C]ourt . . . require[s]

oral arguments.” Id.

The only remaining defendant, Dana Youhas, strenuously

opposes such appointment primarily because “there is no

constitutional right to counsel in a civil case.” Resp. (Doc.

78) at 2:12. Further, defendant Youhas “strongly believes that

th[is] second appeal . . . is frivolous, and lacks merit.” Id.

at 2:8-9. 

Plaintiff does not “dispute that he has no legal right to

counsel[]” on his appeal, but he is seeking to have this court,

in the exercise of its discretion, to appoint him counsel given

the purportedly “complex issues” involved. Reply (Doc. 79) at

1 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff

further reiterates his inability to appear for oral argument,

should the Ninth Circuit require it, and his unfamiliarity with

appellate practice.

Discussion

It is well settled that the filing of a notice of appeal “is

an event of jurisdictional significance” – a fact defendant

Youhas did not take into account. See Griggs v. Provident

Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74

L.Ed.2d 225 (1982) (per curiam). “Generally, the filing of a

notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction with

respect to all matters involved in the appeal.” Fegan v.

Case 2:09-cv-02543-RCB-SPL Document 80 Filed 05/18/12 Page 2 of 4
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 -

Warden, 2009 WL 1260397, at *1 (E.D.Cal. May 7, 2009) (citing,

inter alia, Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d

225. In the present case, plaintiff’s filing of his notice of

appeal on April 13, 2012, divested this court of jurisdiction to

consider his contemporaneously filed motion for appointment of

appellate counsel. See id. at *2 (citing case) (denying without

prejudice inmate pro se plaintiff’s motion for, inter alia,

appointment of counsel, given his pending appeal in the Ninth

Circuit); see also United States v. Jones, 2010 WL 2787658, at

*1 (D.Mont. July 14, 2010) (because case was on appeal, district

court lacked jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff’s motion for

appointment of counsel); accord Ashley v. Wilson, 2010 WL

1949630, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 13, 2010) (and cases cited

therein) (notice of appeal divested the district court of

jurisdiction to consider motion by pro se inmate plaintiff with

in forma pauperis status for appointment of appellate counsel).

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that plaintiff’s

“Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Appeal of Judgment” is

DENIED without prejudice.

 DATED this 17th day of May, 2012.

Case 2:09-cv-02543-RCB-SPL Document 80 Filed 05/18/12 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 2:09-cv-02543-RCB-SPL Document 80 Filed 05/18/12 Page 4 of 4