Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01849/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01849-24/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL LOUIS FOSTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. ENENMOH,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:08-cv-01849-LJO-SKO PC

NOTICE TO PARTIES RE PLAINTIFF’S 

NOTICE OF APPEAL

(Doc. 122)

This matter is set for jury trial on February 4, 2014. On January 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 

notice of appeal of the Court’s Pretrial Order, filed on December 10, 2013, in which the Court 

dismissed his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and denied his motion for the 

appointment of an expert witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. 

Although the filing of a notice of appeal generally divests a district court of jurisdiction to 

determine the “substantial rights” at issue in an action during the pendency of the appeal, 

Pyrodyne Corp. v. Pyrotronics Corp., 847 F.2d 1398, 1403 (9th Cir. 1988), an exception to this 

rule exists where a deficiency in the notice of appeal “is clear to the district court,” Ruby v. 

Secretary of the United States Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1966). In such a case the district 

court may proceed with the case “knowing that it has not been deprived of jurisdiction.” Ruby, 

365 F.2d at 389. In this instance, Plaintiff is attempting to appeal a non-appealable interlocutory 

order. Because it is clear that no appeal lies at this time from the order issued, the Court has not 

Case 1:08-cv-01849-LJO-SKO Document 125 Filed 01/06/14 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

been deprived of jurisdiction over this action and this matter shall proceed to trial as scheduled. 

Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 2007); Ruby, 365 F.2d at 389.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01849-LJO-SKO Document 125 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 2