Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00887/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00887-18/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS A. HIGHTOWER,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-0887-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On May 15, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed objections

to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 86 Filed 08/13/07 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

 Plaintiff has filed an interlocutory appeal of the dismissal of his claims against the other 1

remaining defendants. Although “[a]s a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a

district court of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal[,]” Stein v.

Wood,127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997), the district court retains jurisdiction in this instance

because this circuit has long “recognized an exception to the general rule that a valid notice of

appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over all but tangential matters,” when the appeal is

patently frivolous. Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1018 n. 8 (9th Cir. 1996), citing Chuman v.

Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992) (“frivolous or forfeited appeal does not

automatically divest the district court of jurisdiction.”). See also, U. S. v. Powell, 24 F.3d 28

(9th Cir. 1994); U.S. v. LaMere, 951 F.2d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir. 1991); U.S. v. Claiborne, 727

F.2d 842 (9th Cir. 1984). The appeal in this action has not been made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1292 (interlocutory decisions) and is otherwise without merit. Plaintiff has not appealed from an

appealable order (no final order from which to appeal). Fletcher v. Gagosian, 604 F.2d 637, 638

(9th Cir.1979) (if a district court dismisses less than all claims in an action or fewer than all

defendants, such a dismissal is not a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291). A party

may appeal “final decisions of the district courts....” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “A ‘final decision’ for

purposes of § 1291 is a ‘decision by the District Court that ends the litigation on the merits and

leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Duke Energy Trading and

Marketing, L.L.C. v. Davis, et al., 267 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2001), quoting Coopers &

Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467, 98 S. Ct. 2454 (1978). 

2

proper analysis.

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 15, 2007, are adopted in full;

2. Defendant Peneta is dismissed;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment.

Dated: August 10, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 86 Filed 08/13/07 Page 2 of 2