Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05997/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05997-5/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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC HACKETT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

DON TAYLOR, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

1:01-CV-5997 REC SMS HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 

[Doc. #95]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus on

appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 5, 2005, this Court denied the petition with prejudice, and judgment was entered

for Respondent.

On August 22, 2005, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. On October 6, 2005, Petitioner filed

the instant motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Petitioner is advised that the notice of appeal effectively deprived this Court of

jurisdiction to rule on his motion for relief. 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,

Case 1:01-cv-05997-REC -SMS Document 96 Filed 10/24/05 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

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). A district court does have discretion to entertain a motion for

reconsideration even though an appeal has been taken, but only after an appellate mandate has

issued. Gould, 790 F.2d at 773 (“Once an appellate mandate has issued, leave of . . . [the Court of

Appeal] is not required for district court consideration of Rule 60(b) motion”). Because the appeal is

pending, this Court is without jurisdiction to rule on Petitioner’s motion.

Accordingly, the motion for relief from judgment is DISMISSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05997-REC -SMS Document 96 Filed 10/24/05 Page 2 of 2