Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01434/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01434-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OSCAR OLIVAS,

Plaintiff-Petitioner,

CASE NO. 14cv1434-WQH-BLM

ORDER

v.

BILLY WHITFORD, Port Director of

Calexico West Port of Entry, Customs

and Border Patrol, PETE FLORES,

Director of Field Operations, San

Diego Field Office, Customs and

Border Protection; R. GIL

KERLIKOWSKE, Commissioner of

Customs and Border Protection; JEH

JOHNSON, Secretary of Homeland

Security; and JOHN KERRY,

Secretary of State,

Defendants-Respondents.

HAYES, Judge:

I. Background

On June 12, 2014, Plaintiff-Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

and Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants Billy Whitford,

Pete Flores, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Jeh Johnson, and John Kerry. (ECF No. 1). In

addition to the petition for habeas relief, Plaintiff-Petitioner alleged four claims: (1)

Right of U.S. Citizen to Return to United States under the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments and the Non-Detention Act; (2) Right of U.S. Citizen Against Unlawful

Detention under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Non-Detention Act; (3)

Violation of Fifth Amendment (Procedural Due Process); and (4) Violation of Fifth

- 1 - 14cv1434-WQH-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-01434-WQH-BLM Document 197 Filed 10/27/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
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

Amendment (Substantive Due Process).1

On June 28, 2016, the Court issued an Order denying the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 167).

On July 21, 2016, Plaintiff-Petitioner filed a motion for entry of judgment under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). (ECF No. 171). Plaintiff-Petitioner requested

that the Court enter judgment on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the first

and second claims of the Complaint, asserting that the first and second claims were

“effectively disposed of” in the June 28, 2016 Order. (ECF No. 171-1 at 2). 

Defendants-Respondents opposed the request for entry of Rule 54(b) judgment on the

first and second causes of action because the claims have not been adjudicated. (ECF

No. 175). 

On August 23, 2016, the Court denied the motion for entry of judgment under

Rule 54(b). (ECF No. 180). The Court determined that judgment could not be entered

on the first and second claims because neither claim had been adjudicated. This Court

stated that “the four remaining claims have not been adjudicated and present issues

intertwined with the habeas claim to such an extent that resolving all claims prior to an

appeal will serve the interests of justice.” Id. at 2-3. The Court concluded that “the

parties have not demonstrated that resolving the remaining claims would require

lengthy delay sufficient to justify granting the Rule 54(b) motion.” Id. at 3.

On August 29, 2016, Plaintiff-Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth

Circuit at to the Order denying his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 181). 

On September 6, 2016, the Court ordered both parties to show cause why this case

should not be stayed during the pendency of the appeal. (ECF No. 185). On

September 12, 2016, Plaintiff-Petitioner filed a response to the order to show cause. 

(ECF No. 186). Plaintiff-Petitioner stated that he filed the “protective notice of appeal.” 

1

 Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major stayed discovery on the four non-habeas claims pending the resolution of the habeas claim (ECF No. 88), however, a stay of the case has not been entered on claims one through four.

- 2 - 14cv1434-WQH-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-01434-WQH-BLM Document 197 Filed 10/27/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
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

Id. at 1. Plaintiff-Petitioner requested that “the Court adopt the Habeas Order as

findings [of] fact and conclusions of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) with respect to all

claims in the complaint” and “enter final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58." Id. at 4,

5. On September 12, 2016, Defendants-Respondents filed a response to the order to

show cause. (ECF No. 187). Defendants-Respondents stated that due to this Court’s

“findings and conclusions in its June 28, 2016 habeas denial [Doc. 167], this Court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear most if not all of Plaintiff-Petitioner’s nonhabeas claims” under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). Id. at 2. 

On September 26, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order

stating, in part, 

It appears that the USDC’s order challenged in this appeal may not have disposed of the action as to all claims and all parties. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall move for voluntary dismissal of this appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. 

(ECF No. 193). On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff-Petitioner filed a supplemental brief

in response to the order to show cause requesting that the Court “adopt its [Order

denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus] as findings of fact and conclusions of

law and enter judgment against Plaintiffs on all claims” pursuant to Rule 52 and 58 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 196 at 1,3). 

II. Discussion

The Supreme Court has held that jurisdiction is transferred from a district court

to a court of appeals upon filing of a notice of appeal. See Griggs v. Provident

Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam) (“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.”); Visioneering Constr. & Dev. Co. v. United States Fidelity &

Guar., 661 F.2d 119, 124 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Once a notice of appeal is filed

jurisdiction is vested in the Court of Appeals, and the trial court thereafter has no power

to modify its judgment in the case or proceed further except by leave of the Court of

- 3 - 14cv1434-WQH-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-01434-WQH-BLM Document 197 Filed 10/27/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
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

Appeals.”).

Plaintiff-Petitioner requests that this Court adopt the Habeas Order as “findings

[of] fact and conclusions of law under Fed. R. Civ P. 52(a) with respect to all claims

in the complaint.” (ECF No. 186 at 4; see also ECF No. 196 at 3) (emphasis added). 

The Court concludes that Plaintiff-Petitioner’s non-habeas claims have not been

adjudicated and therefore a judgment cannot be entered as to all claims in the

Complaint.

 On August 23, 2016 , the Court denied the Rule 54(b) motion filed by PlaintiffPetitioner because Plaintiff-Petitioner requested an entry of judgment for two claims

that had not yet been adjudicated. (ECF No. 180 at 2). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

54(b) provides that “[w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . the

court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims

or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Even if a request for entry of judgment under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 54(b) may have been appropriate for the habeas claim, the Notice of

Appeal filed by Plaintiff-Petitioner on August 28, 2016 transferred jurisdiction from

this Court to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Petitioner-Plaintiff contends that this Court has the jurisdiction to enter a

judgment pursuant to Rule 52 and Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

(ECF No. 186 at 4-5; ECF No. 196 at 2). Plaintiff-Petitioner contends that, “If the

Habeas Order is appealable as final, this Court retains jurisdiction to take action in aid

of appellate jurisdiction.” (ECF No. 186 at 3). The authority cited by PlaintiffPetitioner fails to establish that this Court has jurisdiction to enter judgment according

to Rule 52 and 58 at this stage in the proceedings. In In re Silberkraus, the court

recognized “an exception to the general rule [that the filing of a notice of appeal

generally divests the trial court of jurisdiction] where the district court aids us in our

review.” 336 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2003). The exception allowed a bankruptcy court

to retain “jurisdiction to publish its written findings of fact and conclusions of law [after

- 4 - 14cv1434-WQH-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-01434-WQH-BLM Document 197 Filed 10/27/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
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

the notice of appeal was filed] because they were consistent with the court’s oral

findings” made before the notice of appeal was filed and because the findings aided the

appellate court’s review. Id. In re Silberkraus does not establish that this Court retains

the jurisdiction to adopt the Habeas Order as findings of fact and conclusions of law and

enter judgment on all claims, including those that have not been adjudicated. See also

Davis v. United States, 667 F.2d 822 (9th Cir. 1982) (recognizing the same exception

by which a “district court may act to assist the court of appeals in the exercise of its

jurisdiction” but holding that a post-appeal motion to file an amended complaint did not

fall within this exception).

The Court concludes that the Plaintiff-Petitioner’s filing of the Notice of Appeal

divested this Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate related claims and enter judgment. This

Court cannot proceed further except by leave of the Court of Appeals.

III. Conclusion

This case shall be stayed during the pendency of the appeal. 

DATED: October 27, 2016

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 5 - 14cv1434-WQH-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-01434-WQH-BLM Document 197 Filed 10/27/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5