Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00250/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00250-10/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL MONTANEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

VELASCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00250 AWI DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO FILE OBJECTIONS

[ECF No. 83]

ORDER STRIKING OBJECTIONS

[ECF No. 84]

Plaintiff Paul Montanez (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 

civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on February 22, 2012. He filed a 

First Amended Complaint on November 5, 2012.

On May 4, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

recommended Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. The parties were granted 

thirty days from the date of service of the Findings and Recommendations to file objections. Over 

thirty days passed and no party filed objections. On June 16, 2015, the undersigned adopted the 

Findings and Recommendations in full and granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, 

thereby concluding the case.

On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. On July 20, 2015, he filed a 

“revised” motion for reconsideration as well as a motion requesting a 60-day extension of time to 

file a notice of appeal. On July 28, 2015, he filed a second motion for extension of time. On August 

Case 1:12-cv-00250-AWI-DLB Document 86 Filed 10/07/15 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

27

28

2

14, 2015, he filed a “re-revised” motion for reconsideration. On September 11, 2015, the Court 

denied Plaintiff’s motions. The Court noted that Plaintiff had already filed a notice of appeal with 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, and Plaintiff’s arguments presented no grounds for 

reconsideration.

On September 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant request for permission to file objections to 

the Findings and Recommendation along with his objections. Plaintiff is advised that this case is on 

appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. Generally, the filing of a notice of appeal divests the 

district court of jurisdiction with respect to all matters involved in the appeal. Griggs v. Provident 

Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam); Bermudez v. Duenas, 936 F.2d 1064, 

1068 (9th Cir.1991); Gould v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 772 

(9th Cir.1986); Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir.1984); Davis v. United States, 667 

F.2d 822, 824 (9th Cir.1982). Because the appeal is pending in the Ninth Circuit, this Court is 

without jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s objections.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for permission to file 

objections is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s objections are hereby STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00250-AWI-DLB Document 86 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 2