Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01028/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01028-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

KEITH THOMAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1028 LKK GGH P

vs.

AWI , 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 August 8, 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 not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

Named as defendants in this action are four judges from the Fresno Division of

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff alleged that these

judges improperly dismissed his actions without giving him adequate leave to amend. Plaintiff

sought an order directing these judges to allow him to amend his pleadings. The magistrate

Case 2:07-cv-01028-LKK -GGH Document 14 Filed 10/05/07 Page 1 of 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

2

judge stated that plaintiff’s dispute with these rulings did not state a cognizable federal claim. 

Because it was clear that plaintiff could not cure the pleading defect, the magistrate judge

recommended that this action be dismissed.

Plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal of the findings and recommendations. 

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). 

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal

does not divest this court of jurisdiction to consider the findings and recommendations.

///// 

Case 2:07-cv-01028-LKK -GGH Document 14 Filed 10/05/07 Page 2 of 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

3

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 8, 2007, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed.

DATED: October 4, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01028-LKK -GGH Document 14 Filed 10/05/07 Page 3 of 3