Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01572/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01572-3/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

14CV1572 BEN (PCL)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM ALLEN GARRETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD,

Defendant.

Case No.: 14CV1572 BEN (PCL)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY;

(2) DENYING MOTION TO 

VACATE JUDGMENT

[Docket No. 51, 54]

On April 15, 2015, the Court denied Petitioner William Allen Garrett’s Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus and denied a certificate of appealability. (Docket No. 46.) On 

May 18, 2015, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and an Application for Certificate of Appelability.1 

(Docket Nos. 50-51.) On November 12, 2015, Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate 

Judgment. (Docket No. 54.) 

///

 

1 The Court notes that the request for a certificate of appealability specifically identified this Court, as 

opposed to the Ninth Circuit and it appears that Petitioner also filed a request for a certificate of 

appealability with the Ninth Circuit. 

Case 3:14-cv-01572-BEN-PCL Document 55 Filed 11/19/15 Page 1 of 3
2

14CV1572 BEN (PCL)

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

I. Certificate of Appealability

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Assuming the 

Court could revisit the issue, Petitioner has not presented the Court with any arguments 

that would justify reconsidering the Court’s April 14, 2015 denial of a certificate of 

appealability.

II. Motion to Vacate Judgment

“As a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of 

jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Stein v. Wood, 127 

F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). A district court lacks jurisdiction to 

entertain a Rule 60(b) motion filed after a notice of appeal. Katzir Floor & Home 

Design, Inc. v. M–MLS.com, 394 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2004). This Court lacks 

jurisdiction to consider the Motion. 

“To seek Rule 60(b) relief during the pendency of an appeal, the proper procedure 

is to ask the district court whether it wishes to entertain the motion, or to grant it, and 

then move [the Court of Appeal], if appropriate, for remand of the case.” Williams v. 

Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 586 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). Petitioner did not observe this procedure. However, to the extent his Motion is 

an attempt to ask the Court whether it wants to entertain or grant the Motion, the Court 

does not. Petitioner’s Motion just reiterates prior arguments the Court has already 

considered.

When the Court is faced with a motion it “lacks authority to grant because of an 

appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the court may: (1) defer considering the 

motion; (2) deny the motion; or (3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court 

of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 62.1. As noted above, the Court would not grant the Motion if remanded and the 

Motion does not raise a substantial issue. Additionally, there is no reason for the Court to 

defer consideration of the Motion. The Motion to Vacate Judgment is DENIED. 

Case 3:14-cv-01572-BEN-PCL Document 55 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 3
3

14CV1572 BEN (PCL)

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

CONCLUSION

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED and his Motion to 

Vacate the Judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2015

Case 3:14-cv-01572-BEN-PCL Document 55 Filed 11/19/15 Page 3 of 3