Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01068/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01068-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dave Davey
Respondent
Richard Louis Arnold Phillips
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

RICHARD LOUIS ARNOLD PHILLIPS,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVE DAVEY,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01068-LJO-SAB-HC

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO VACATE BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE

(ECF No. 27)

Petitioner is proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

I.

BACKGROUND

On October 14, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion to stay the state court proceedings. (ECF 

No. 12). On October 22, 2014, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion to stay the state court 

proceedings. (ECF No. 14). On October 30, 2014, the Court ordered Respondent to file a 

response to the petition within sixty (60) days of the date of service of the order. (ECF No. 16). 

On October 31, 2014, Petitioner filed a notice of interlocutory appeal of the denial of his motion 

to stay the state court proceedings. (ECF No. 19). Respondent had yet to make an appearance at 

the time the appeal was filed. On October 28, 2014, the Respondent entered the case and filed a 

status report. (ECF No. 15). On November 12, 2014, Respondent filed a decline of magistrate 

judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 22). On November 12, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals 

Case 1:14-cv-01068-LJO-SAB Document 28 Filed 12/24/14 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

for the Ninth Circuit noted that both parties had not yet consented to the jurisdiction of the 

magistrate at the time of the order on Petitioner’s motion to stay the state court proceedings, and 

asked Petitioner why the matter should not be remanded back to the district court as a result. On 

November 18, 2014, Petitioner sent a letter to the Ninth Circuit requesting that the interlocutory 

appeal be vacated and the matter be remanded to the district court. On December 15, 2014, the 

Ninth Circuit ordered Respondent to file a response to the Ninth Circuit’s November 12, 2014, 

order to show cause, by January 5, 2015. (ECF No. 27, Attachment A). 

On November 24, 2014, Petitioner filed a second motion to stay the state court 

proceedings. (ECF No. 24). On December 5, 2014, the Court granted Respondent’s motion for

an extension of time to respond to the second stay request until December 30, 2014, which was 

also the due date for a response to the petition. (ECF No. 26). 

On December 23, 2014, Respondent filed a motion to vacate the briefing schedule due to 

pending appeal. (ECF No. 27). 

II.

DISCUSSION

Respondent argues in his motion to vacate the briefing schedule that the filing of the 

interlocutory appeal divested this Court of jurisdiction.

On October 31, 2014, Petitioner filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of his motion 

to stay the state court proceedings, which was a request for injunctive relief. Pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §1292, the courts of appeals have jurisdiction of appeals from interlocutory orders of the 

district courts “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to 

dissolve or modify injunctions.” Therefore, Petitioner filed a proper interlocutory appeal. 

“When a notice of appeal is filed, jurisdiction over the matters being appealed normally transfers 

from the district court to the appeals court.” Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930, 935 (9th

Cir. 2001) (citing Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379, 

105 S.Ct. 1327, 84 L.ED.2d 274 (1985) (“In general, 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.”)). 

Case 1:14-cv-01068-LJO-SAB Document 28 Filed 12/24/14 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

3

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 62(c) provides an exception to the general rule that a 

district court is divested of jurisdiction during an interlocutory appeal. Rule 62(c) provides, in 

pertinent part:

While an appeal is pending from an interlocutory or final judgment 

grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction, the court may suspend, 

modify, restore, or grant an injunction on terms for bond or other 

terms that secure the opposing party’s rights.

 

Pursuant to Rule 62(c), a “district court retains jurisdiction during the pendency of an appeal to 

act to preserve the status quo.” Mayweathers, 258 F.3d at 935 (quoting Natural Resources 

Defense Council Inc. v. Southwest Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001). 

This Court does not have jurisdiction during the pendency of the interlocutory appeal to 

decide Petitioner’s second motion to stay the state court proceedings, as the motion addresses an 

aspect of the case involved in the appeal and an order granting the motion to stay would reflect a 

change in the result of the very issue on appeal. See Marrese, 470 U.S. at 379. Also, the Court 

does not have jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 62(c) over Petitioner’s second motion for a stay of 

the state court proceedings during the pendency of the interlocutory appeal, because if the Court 

grants the motion, then the Court would be changing the status quo at the time of the first appeal 

and materially alter the status of the appeal. See Mayweathers, 258 F.3d at 935. 

The issue of whether the Court was divested of jurisdiction to decide the petition and 

matters not involved in the appeal is not as straightforward as Respondent appears to argue. The 

Court would request further briefing on whether the Court was divested of jurisdiction to decide 

the merits of the petition and other matters not involved in the appeal, but in the interests of 

judicial economy, the Court will continue the briefing schedule and extend the time for 

Respondent to file a response. The Court does not find that there is reason to vacate the 

scheduling order. Irrespective of the outcome of the interlocutory appeal, when the interlocutory 

appeal concludes, the Court will require Respondent to file an Answer to the petition and the 

Court will decide the merits of the petition. Therefore, the Court will extend the time for 

Respondent to file a response to the petition and a response to the second motion for stay.

///

Case 1:14-cv-01068-LJO-SAB Document 28 Filed 12/24/14 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

III.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s motion to vacate the briefing schedule due to pending appeal is 

DENIED; 

2. Respondent is granted through and including February 20, 2015, in which to file an 

answer to the petition;

3. Respondent is granted through and including February 20, 2015, in which to file a 

response to Petitioner’s second motion to stay the state court proceedings; and

4. Petitioner’s traverse, if any, is due on or before THIRTY (30) days from the date 

Respondent’s Answer is filed.

All motions shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless 

otherwise ordered by the Court. Local Rule 230(l). Extensions of time will only be granted 

upon a showing of good cause. All provisions of Local Rule 110 are applicable to this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 24, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01068-LJO-SAB Document 28 Filed 12/24/14 Page 4 of 4