Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00760/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00760-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Robert Carrasco Gamez, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-00760-PHX-RCB

 O R D E R 

 Currently pending before the court is a motion (Doc. 112) by plaintiff pro se

Robert C. Gamez, Jr., seeking permission to file a sur-reply to defendants’ response to 

plaintiff’s various motions to strike. As explained below, the court lacks jurisdiction to 

consider this motion which is, in any event, moot. 

Background

 On July 2, 2013, this court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, 

denied plaintiff’s motion to strike, directed entry of judgment in defendants’ favor and 

found that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal would not be taken in good 

faith. Ord. (Doc. 110). The court’s Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) indicates that 

that order was filed at 11:25 a.m. Several minutes later, at 11:32 a.m., judgment was 

entered in accordance with that court order. Doc. 111, NEF. At 1:23 p.m., on July 2, 

2013, after the entry of judgment, the plaintiff filed his motion seeking leave to file a surreply with respect to the motion to strike, which, by that time, had already been decided 

adversely to him. 

Case 2:12-cv-00760-RCB Document 120 Filed 02/04/14 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

 A week later, on July 9, 2013, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. See Doc. 113. That appeal is still pending and active. In fact, 

on January 30, 2014, the plaintiff filed a request for the status of his appeal. See Gamez 

v. Norris, No. 13-16404 (9th Cir.) Doc. 22. 

Discussion

 “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it 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, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982) (per curiam). Accordingly, 

plaintiff Gamez’s filing of his notice of appeal divested this court of jurisdiction. 

Consequently, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff’s motion to file a surreply. As an aside, the court observes that in any event, LRCiv 7.2 allows only for a 

motion, a response and a reply. That Rule makes no provision for a sur-reply. Therefore, 

the plaintiff was afforded full briefing under that Rule with respect to his motion to strike. 

 In light of the foregoing, the court hereby DENIES the plaintiff’s motion seeking 

“permission to file a sur[-]reply to defendants[’] dkt. 109[.]” See Mot. (Doc. 112). 

 DATED this 2nd day of February, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-00760-RCB Document 120 Filed 02/04/14 Page 2 of 2