Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08013/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08013-6/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Peter Michael Palmer, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Prescott, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8013-PCT-DGC

ORDER

Generally, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction over

those aspects of the case involved in the appeal. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer

Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). Where, however, 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). “Where the deficiency in a notice of appeal, by reason of untimeliness, lack

of essential recitals, or reference to a non-appealable order, is clear to the district court, it

may disregard the purported notice of appeal and proceed with the case, knowing that it has

not been deprived of jurisdiction.” Ruby v. Sec’y of the Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 388-89 (9th

Cir.1996) (emphasis added). Simply put, “[f]iling an appeal from an unappealable decision

does not divest the district court of jurisdiction.” United States v. Hickey, 580 F.3d 922, 928

(9th Cir.2009); see Neal v. United States, No. 2:90-CR-00003-PHX-RCB, 2010 WL

1752491, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 29, 2010).

Case 3:10-cv-08013-DGC Document 59 Filed 01/28/11 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 -

No final judgment has been entered in this case. The order Plaintiff has appealed from

(Doc. 51) is not an appealable final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Nor is it an interlocutory

order generally appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), and the Court has not provided the

statement necessary to make the order an interlocutory order appealable under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292(b). Because Plaintiff’s notice of appeal (Doc. 54) refers to a non-appealable

interlocutory order, it does not divest the Court of jurisdiction. Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc., No.

CV 09-8114-PCT-MHM (DKD), 2010 WL 1657635, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 21, 2010).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's motion to stay or reschedule the case management conference

(Doc. 53) is denied. 

2. The case management conference remains set for February 11, 2011 at 4:30

p.m. (Doc. 52).

DATED this 28th day of January, 2011.

Case 3:10-cv-08013-DGC Document 59 Filed 01/28/11 Page 2 of 2