Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02066/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02066-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY WAYNE ARNETT,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

WALGREEN COMPANY, INC., aka 

(“Walgreens”) and UNKNOWN LICENSED 

PHARMACISTS AT WALGREENS STORE 

#02865

 Defendants.

1:13-CV-02066-LJO-MJS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION (Doc. 26)

On April 18, 2014, Plaintiff Timothy Wayne Arnett (“Plaintiff”) brought a medical malpractice 

and wrongful death action on behalf of his son Timothy Arnett against Walgreen Company, Inc. 

(“Defendant”). Doc. 8. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. Doc. 14. 

On January 15, 2015, this Court granted the motion to dismiss without leave to amend. Doc. 20. 

Judgment was entered against Plaintiff on January 15, 2015. Doc. 21. On February 5, 2015, Plaintiff 

filed a notice of appeal. Doc. 22. On February 9, 2015, the Court of Appeals referred the matter back to 

the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should 

continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. Doc. 25.1 On February 

27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) 

 

1 The Referral Notice indicates that if the district court elects to revoke in forma pauperis status, the district court should

notify the Court of Appeals and the parties of such determination within 21 days; if the district court does not revoke in forma 

pauperis status, such status will continue automatically for the appeal. Doc. 25. The Court does not believe that this limited 

Referral Notice impacts in any way the jurisdictional analysis set forth herein. 

Case 1:13-cv-02066-LJO-MJS Document 27 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 3
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

2

of this Court’s order on the motion to dismiss. Doc. 26.2

Because Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on February 5, 2015, the Court must first consider 

whether it has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. As a general rule, “[o]nce a notice 

of appeal is filed, the district court is divested of jurisdiction over the matters being appealed.” See 

Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc. v. Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001). Federal 

Rule of Appellate Procedure (“Appellate Rule”) 4(a)(4)(B)(i) allows a district court to amend a 

judgment, even when a notice of appeal has been filed, in certain situations. See Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(4)(B)(i). Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(B)(i) provides:

If a party files a notice of appeal after the court announces or enters a 

judgment—but before it disposes of any motion listed in Rule 

4(a)(4)(A)—the notice becomes effective to appeal a judgment or order, in 

whole or in part, when the order disposing of the last such remaining 

motion is entered.

Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) identifies several types of motions including motions to alter or amend the 

judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 and motions for relief from a judgment or order 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi). 

Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(B)(i) does not specify whether it operates when the motion at issue is 

filed after the notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i). The Transmittal Note to the 1993 

Amendment to Appellate Rule 4(a)(4) states that a “notice [of appeal] filed before the filing of one of 

the specified motions or after the filing of a motion but before the disposition of the motion is, in effect, 

suspended until the motion is disposed of, whereupon, the previously filed notice effectively places 

jurisdiction in the court of appeals.” (Emphasis added). Although the Ninth Circuit has not expressly 

addressed this issue, “recent case law suggests that it would embrace the Advisory Committee’s 

interpretation of Appellate Rule 4(a)(4),” permitting suspension of a notice of appeal upon the 

subsequent, timely filing of one of the specified motions. Yousefian v. City of Glendale, No. CV 11–

 

2 The motion for reconsideration indicates that it was “executed” by Plaintiff, who is incarcerated, on February 23, 2015, but 

the motion was not filed with this Court until February 27, 2015. 

Case 1:13-cv-02066-LJO-MJS Document 27 Filed 03/11/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

03579, 2013 WL 948743, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar.11, 2013) (citing Crawford v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 

No. CV 11–05206, 2012 WL 3638628, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2012) (explaining that Ninth Circuit 

held appeal in abeyance pending district court's resolution of a post-judgment motion filed after the 

notice of appeal but within Rule 4(a)(4)'s 28-day time period)); Galyean v. I.R.S., No. C13-1570JLR, 

2013 WL 6230382, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 2, 2013). 

However, in order to get the benefit of Appellate Rule 4(a)(4), a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

60 motion must be “filed no later than 28 days after judgment is entered.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) 

(A)(vi). The court entered judgment on January 15, 2015. Doc. 21. Accordingly, the 28-day window for 

the filing of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion expired on February 12, 2015. Even if the 

Court were to deem Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration filed on the day it was “executed,” February 

23, 2015, the motion was not timely for purposes of Appellate Rule 4(a)(4). Therefore, the notice of 

appeal is not suspended pursuant to Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(B)(i) and this Court lacks jurisdiction over 

the pending motion for reconsideration. Accordingly Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED 

for lack of jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02066-LJO-MJS Document 27 Filed 03/11/15 Page 3 of 3