Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00269/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00269-18/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT C. BRUCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00269-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR COPY OF DOCKET AND DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 102, 106)

Plaintiff Vincent C. Bruce (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants Ward,

Fulks, Fields, Schottgen, Tripp, Lloren, Frauenheim, Wan, Clark, Hense, and Adams. On August

2, 2010, findings and recommendations issued recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss

be granted. (ECF No. 77.) On September 8, 2010, findings and recommendations issued

recommending that Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief be denied. (ECF No. 84.) 

On September 21, 2010, findings and recommendations issued recommending that Defendant

Sanchez be dismissed for failure to effect service of process. (ECF No. 88.) On December 15,

2010, orders issued adopting the findings and recommendations denying injunctive relief and

dismissing Defendant Sanchez from the action. (ECF Nos. 93, 94.) On January 19, 2011, Plaintiff

filed a notice of appeal of the final judgment entered in this action. (ECF No. 97.) Plaintiff filed a

request for a copyof the docket and the order adopting the findings and recommendations dismissing

this action on February 22, 2011, and Defendants filed a request for entry of order and judgment on

August 8, 2011. (ECF Nos. 102, 106.)

1

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 107 Filed 08/10/11 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

Once Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal the district court was divested of jurisdiction and an

order adopting the findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of this action has not

been entered. National Ass’n of Home Builders v. Norton, 325 F.3d 1165, 1167 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a copy of the docket is GRANTED and the Clerk of the Court

is directed to mail a copy of the docket to Plaintiff; and

2. Defendants request for entry of order and judgment is DENIED pending the

resolution of Plaintiff’s appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 107 Filed 08/10/11 Page 2 of 2