Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00127/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00127-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv127-LAB and

12cr847-LAB-1

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

VACATE PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 2255

vs.

ROBERTO HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant.

Defendant Roberto Hernandez-Hernandez pleaded guilty in this Court to being a

previously deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Although he proceeded pro se in this Court, he was appointed counsel for purposes of

appeal. His counsel filed an appeal, which is now pending in the Ninth Circuit. 

Hernandez then filed a petition, styled as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in the Central District of California. The judge to whom it was assigned,

Hon. George H. Wu, construed it as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and transferred

it here.

Because Hernandez is represented by counsel on appeal, he should not have filed

what amounts to a § 2255 motion on his own, but rather should have done so through

counsel. But more importantly, the notice of appeal filed by his counsel deprives this Court

of jurisdiction to consider the motion at all. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459

U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam) (“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional

- 1 - 13cv127 and 12CR847

Case 3:13-cv-00127-LAB Document 7 Filed 01/24/13 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

significance—it 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.”); Edwards v. United States,

2011 WL 3273153, at *3 (E.D.Cal., July 28, 2011) (noting that notice of appeal had deprived

district court of jurisdiction to consider § 2255 motion). 

Because the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 23, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13cv127 and 12CR847

Case 3:13-cv-00127-LAB Document 7 Filed 01/24/13 Page 2 of 2