Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02340/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02340-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS

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

JEHAN ZEB MIR,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN 

ORDER TO CLERK OF THE 

COURT TO RE-OPEN THE CASE

[ECF No. 299.]

On October 20, 2017, Plaintiff Dr. Jehan Zeb Mir filed a Notice and Ex-Parte 

Application for an Order to Clerk of the Court to Re-Open the Case. Dkt. No. 299. The 

Court previously denied Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for an Order to Stay Proceedings 

and Amend Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 292, 

and denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue. Dkt. No. 294. 

On September 26, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment1

and denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 288. 

 

1 While Defendants’ motion was titled “Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary 

Adjudication of the Issues,” the Court’s order was not a partial grant of summary judgment (summary 

Case 3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS Document 300 Filed 10/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS

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

Plaintiff requests that the Court order the Clerk to re-open the case. Dkt. No. 299 at 

1. Plaintiff contends that the case was erroneously closed because the Court’s grant of 

summary adjudication did not dispose of all of the issues in the case. This interpretation 

is erroneous as the Court granted summary judgment as to the entirety of the case and 

disposed of all remaining issues in the case. 

The Court has already explained that the sole remaining claim for the Court to 

address in its Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment was Plaintiff’s 

Section 1983 due process claim. See Dkt. No. 295 (quoting Dkt. No. 169 order granting 

motion to dismiss Fourth Amended Complaint that stated the only remaining claim was 

[p]laintiff’s Section 1983 claim for prospective relief”). Accordingly, the sole remaining 

issue for the Court to address in its Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment was this due process claim. Because the Court granted summary judgment as 

to Defendants on this claim, there are no remaining issues in this case. The Clerk 

correctly issued a judgment on September 26, 2017. Dkt. No. 289. 

Second, the Court will decline to entertain Plaintiff’s request to re-open the case 

because his case is currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit. See Dkt. No. 290 (notice 

of appeal to Ninth Circuit); Dkt. No. 296 (assigning case no. 17-56576); Dkt. No. 297 

(appellate briefing schedule). Once a notice of appeal is filed, the district court is 

divested of jurisdiction over the matters being appealed. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. 

Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001). This rule is judge-made; its 

purpose is to promote judicial economy and avoid the confusion that would ensue from 

having the same issues before two courts simultaneously. Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. 

Co., 718 F.2d 955, 956 (9th Cir. 1983). The principle of exclusive appellate jurisdiction is 

 

adjudication), but rather a grant of summary judgment in its entirety as to all remaining issues in the 

case. 

Case 3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS Document 300 Filed 10/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS

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

not, however, absolute. Masalosalo, 718 F.2d at 956. The district court retains 

jurisdiction during the pendency of an appeal to act to preserve the status quo. Hoffman 

v. Beer Drivers & Salesmen's Local Union No. 888, 536 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir.1976). 

In order to preserve the status quo during the pendency of the appeal, the court will 

accordingly decline to re-open the case. 

Accordingly, because (1) the district court’s Dkt. No. 288 order disposed of all 

remaining issues in the case and (2) there is an active pending appeal in this case, the 

Court will DENY Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for an Order to Clerk of the Court to 

Re-open the Case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2017

Case 3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS Document 300 Filed 10/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3