Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08114/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08114-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

JDDL-K

WO SVK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William W. Castle, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Eurofresh, Inc., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-8114-PCT-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff William W. Castle filed this civil rights action under the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act (RA) against Eurofresh Farms, Inc.

(Eurofresh); the State of Arizona; the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC); Dora

Schriro, former Director of ADC; and Charles Ryan, current Director of ADC (State

Defendants). (Doc. #1.) Eurofresh and the State Defendants separately moved to dismiss.

(Doc. ##20, 27.) On March 8, 2010, the Court granted the motions and dismissed some

claims with prejudice and others with leave to amend. (Doc. #38.) The Court gave Plaintiff

30 days to file an amended complaint or the case would be dismissed; the Court also

provided Plaintiff with the Court-approved complaint form. (Id. at 21.)

Plaintiff now moves for a stay of the proceedings and entry of judgment pending

appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. #43.) Plaintiff filed

a notice of appeal on April 1, 2010. (Doc. #44.)

Case 3:09-cv-08114-JWS Document 50 Filed 04/21/10 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

26

27

28

JDDL-K - 2 -

The Court will deny the motion to stay the proceedings and give Plaintiff an additional

15 days to file an amended complaint. 

I. Analysis

Although the filing of a notice of appeal generally divests the district court of

jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal, the district court’s

jurisdiction is not affected when a litigant files a notice of appeal from an unappealable order.

Estate of Conners v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993). “When a Notice of Appeal

is defective in that it refers to a non-appealable interlocutory order, it does not transfer

jurisdiction to the appellate court, and so the ordinary rule that the district court cannot act

until the mandate has issued on the appeal does not apply.” Nascimento v. Dummer, 508

F.3d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 2007). In such a case, the district court “may disregard the purported

notice of appeal and proceed with the case, knowing that it has not been deprived of

jurisdiction.” Ruby v. Secretary of the United States Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir.

1966). 

Plaintiff asserted in his notice of appeal that he is appealing from “the final judgment

and order entered in this action on the 8th day of March, 2010.” (Doc. #44.) But, in fact, no

final judgment has been entered, and the Court’s Order dismissing the complaint also

granted Plaintiff leave to amend. The March 8 Order is not an appealable final order under

28 U.S.C. § 1291; the Order is not an interlocutory order generally appealable under 28

U.S.C. § 1292(a); and the Court did not provide the statement necessary to make the Order

an interlocutory order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Thus, Plaintiff’s April 1, 2010

notice of appeal refers to a non-appealable interlocutory order and, therefore, Plaintiff’s

notice of appeal did not divest the Court of jurisdiction. 

The Court will not stay proceedings but will give Plaintiff an additional 15 days to file

an amended complaint. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s Motion to

Stay Proceedings and Entry of Judgment Pending Appeal (Doc. #43.) 

Case 3:09-cv-08114-JWS Document 50 Filed 04/21/10 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

26

27

28

JDDL-K - 3 -

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings and Entry of Judgment Pending Appeal

(Doc. #43) is denied.

(3) Plaintiff has 15 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended

complaint in compliance with this Order.

(4) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 15 days, the Clerk of Court

must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action, with prejudice, that

states that the dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

(5) If Plaintiff files an amended complaint within 15 days, the Court will issue

a screening order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Defendants must NOT answer the

Amended Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate motion pursuant to Rule

12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure until after the Court issues its screening

order.

(6) The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a court-approved form for filing a civil

rights complaint by a prisoner.

DATED this 16th day of April, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08114-JWS Document 50 Filed 04/21/10 Page 3 of 3