Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01624/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01624-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LANA LE CHABRIER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:14-cv-01624 AC P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241. On June 25, 2014 the case was transferred to this district from the Northern 

District of California. ECF No. 7. Petitioner has now filed a notice of appeal of the transfer 

order. ECF No. 14. 

Although “[a]s a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of 

jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal[,]” Stein v. Wood,127 F.3d 

1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997), the district court retains jurisdiction in this instance because this 

circuit has long “recognized an exception to the general rule that a valid notice of appeal divests 

the district court of jurisdiction over all but tangential matters,” when the appeal is patently 

frivolous. Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1018 n. 8 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Chuman v. Wright, 

960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992) (“frivolous or forfeited appeal does not 

automatically divest the district court of jurisdiction.”); see also, United States v. Powell, 24 F.3d 

Case 2:14-cv-01624-MCE-EFB Document 17 Filed 08/12/14 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 

2

28 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. LaMere, 951 F.2d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir. 1991); United States 

v. Claiborne, 727 F.2d 842 (9th Cir. 1984). 

A party may appeal “final decisions of the district courts....” 28 U.S.C. ' 1291. “A ‘final 

decision’ for purposes of ' 1291 is a >decision by the District Court that ends the litigation on the 

merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Duke Energy Trading 

and Marketing, L.L.C. v. Davis, et al., 267 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Coopers & 

Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978)). Here, petitioner’s notice of appeal is frivolous 

because a transfer order is not a final appealable order. See Varsic v. United States District 

Court, 607 F.2d 245, 251 (9th Cir. 1979). Accordingly, this case shall proceed in this court 

notwithstanding petitioner’s pending notice of appeal. However, the court will sua sponte grant 

petitioner an extension of time to respond to this court’s July 25, 2014 order to show cause. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s response to the order to show 

cause is now due on or before September 5, 2014. 

DATED: August 12, 2014 

Case 2:14-cv-01624-MCE-EFB Document 17 Filed 08/12/14 Page 2 of 2