Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01147/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01147-2/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 - 08cv1147

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY LEE GRAY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08 CV 1147 JM (WVG)

ORDER STAYING CASE

Doc. No. 52

vs.

ROBERT HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a prisoner in state custody, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation

of his civil rights. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff, proceeding in propria persona and in forma pauperis,

moved the court to appoint counsel to represent him. (Doc. No. 43). The Magistrate Judge, acting

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72.3, denied this motion. (Doc. No. 44). Plaintiff directly appealed this

ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by filing a notice of interlocutory appeal. (Doc. No. 49).

Defendants now move on an ex parte basis to stay the case pending resolution of the appeal by the

Ninth Circuit. (Doc. No. 52). 

In general, the filing of a notice “confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the

district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident

Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). The transfer of jurisdiction—rather than shared

jurisdiction—promotes judicial economy and prevents confusion. Natural Res. Def. Council v. Sw.

Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Case 3:08-cv-01147-JM-WVG Document 59 Filed 12/10/09 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 - 08cv1147

Arguably, this court could maintain jurisdiction because Plaintiff appeals an ancillary aspect

of the case: whether to appoint counsel. Whether Plaintiff has counsel need not affect the ultimate

determination of the case on the merits. 

To avoid confusion and promote judicial economy, however, the court finds it appropriate to

stay the case pending resolution of Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal. See Natural Res. Def. Council,

242 F.3d at 1166. If the Ninth Circuit were to reverse the Magistrate Judge’s decision, the parties

discovery efforts would most likely need to be supplemented or repeated after the appointment of

counsel. A stay during the pendency of appeal eliminates that risk. 

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby STAYS the case pending resolution of Plaintiff’s

interlocutory appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 10, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01147-JM-WVG Document 59 Filed 12/10/09 Page 2 of 2