Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00239/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00239-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Justin Terrence Monroe,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan,

 Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-0239-PHX-PGR

(9th Cir. No. 10-16689) 

 ORDER

 

The Court entered its judgment (Doc. 26) dismissing the petitioner’s

habeas petition as time-barred on July 14, 2010, and the petitioner filed his

Notice of Appeal (Doc. 27) from that judgment on August 2, 2010. Pending

before the Court is the petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 32), filed pursuant

to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) on November 8, 2010, wherein the petitioner seeks to have

the Court reconsider its order denying his habeas petition. The Court finds that

the motion must be denied for lack of jurisdiction since the motion was filed after

the filing of the petitioner’s appeal. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.,

459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400 (1982) (“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

Case 2:09-cv-00239-PGR Document 33 Filed 11/10/10 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

1

 The proper procedure for seeking Rule 60(b) relief during the pendency

of an appeal is to ask the district court whether it wishes to entertain the motion,

or to grant it, and then request the court of appeals, if appropriate, for remand of

the case to the district court. Gadd v. United States, 368 Fed.Appx. 795, 2010 WL

708614, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2010). The petitioner is advised that the Court

would deny his Rule 60(b) motion were it to obtain jurisdiction to consider it.

- 2 -

in the appeal.”); accord, Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 790 F.2d 769, 772 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 987 (1986).1 Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 32) is

denied for lack of jurisdiction.

DATED this 10th day of November, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00239-PGR Document 33 Filed 11/10/10 Page 2 of 2