Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00163/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00163-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

LATEACHEEAH G. ANDERSON

SALVATTO, and RICHARD

SALVATTO, individually and as

guardians for JAMAL THROWER, a

minor,

NO. CIV. S-04-0163 WBS GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION;

MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

COUNTY OF SOLANO, CITY OF

VALLEJO, COUNTY OF SOLANO

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

LIEUTENANT LIDDICOET, OFFICER

K. MCCARTHY, VALLEJO POLICE

DEPARTMENT, WATCH COMMANDER K.

SCHROEDER, CORPORAL B. CLARK,

OFFICER WHITNEY,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On March 26, 2007, this court granted defendants’

motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ first and

fourth causes of action. (March 26, 2007 Order 19.) The court

also dismissed plaintiffs’ state law claims, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and accordingly ordered that this action be

Case 2:04-cv-00163-WBS-GGH Document 77 Filed 05/22/07 Page 1 of 4
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

dismissed. (Id.) On April 26, 2007, plaintiffs, acting through

their attorney, Jeffrey Fletcher, filed Notice of Appeal. On

April 30, 2007, judgment was entered on this court’s order of

dismissal. 

On April 23, 2007, plaintiffs Lateacheeah Anderson

Salvatto, acting in propria persona, filed a motion new trial,

and on May 8, 2007 she filed a motion for reconsideration of this

court’s order granting summary judgment. Because the court lacks

jurisdiction to hear these motions, they are denied.

First, because plaintiff is still represented by

counsel, who in fact filed Notice of Appeal after plaintiff filed

her pro se motion for new trial, she may not simultaneously

appear in propria persona.

Second, “filing of a notice of appeal confers

jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district

court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the

appeal.” Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S.

373, 379 (1985) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co.,

459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam)); see also Williams v.

Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 586 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Carriger v.

Lewis, 971 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir. 1992); Gould v. Mutual Life

Ins. Co., 790 F.2d 769, 772 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Long v.

Bureau of Econ. Analysis, 646 F.2d 1310, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981),

vacated on other grounds, 454 U.S. 934 (1981) (“In this circuit,

the rule has generally been stated that the filing of a notice of

appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction to dispose of

the motion after an appeal has been taken, without a remand from

this court.”)

Case 2:04-cv-00163-WBS-GGH Document 77 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Plaintiff also argues that defendant Officer John 1

Whitney’s declaration and exhibit were fabricated. However,

plaintiff does not demonstrate why she failed to present that

assertion during the summary judgment proceedings. Moreover,

plaintiff does not show that Whitney’s statements are essential

to the court’s findings in its summary judgment order. 

3

Third, to seek relief from a district court order

during the pendency of an appeal, “‘the proper procedure is to

ask the district court whether it wishes to entertain the motion,

or to grant it, and then move [the court of appeal], if

appropriate, for remand of the case.’” Williams, 384 F.3d at 586

(quoting Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir. 1984)

(further citations omitted)). Plaintiff’s pending motions

concern reconsideration of this court’s March 26, 2007, order,

which is the very aspect of the case that is currently pending

before the court of appeals, and plaintiff has not followed the

procedure laid out by the Ninth Circuit in Williams.

Fourth, even had plaintiff followed the correct

procedures, this court would not entertain her motions for

reconsideration or a new trial. Plaintiff’s moving papers

largely rehash the same unsuccessful arguments made against

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. United States v.

Wetlands Water Dist. 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1130 (E.D. Cal. 2001)

(motions for reconsideration “should not merely present arguments

previously raised, or which could have been raised in the initial

summary judgment motion.”). 1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for

reconsideration and/or new trial to dismiss be, and the same

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-00163-WBS-GGH Document 77 Filed 05/22/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

hereby are, DENIED, for lack of jurisdiction.

DATED: May 22, 2007

 

 

Case 2:04-cv-00163-WBS-GGH Document 77 Filed 05/22/07 Page 4 of 4