Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_90-cr-00003/USCOURTS-azd-2_90-cr-00003-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Denard Darnell Neal
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Denard Darnell Neal, )

)

Petitioner, ) 2:90-CR-00003-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

United States of America, )

)

Respondent. ) )

Introduction

Currently pending before the court is a “Motion to Proceed on

Appeal In Forma Pauperis [(“IFP”)]” filed on June 7, 2010, by

petitioner pro se Denard Darnell Neal (Doc. 227). As explained

below, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider this motion; and,

in any event, it is now moot.

Background

On May 10, 2010, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc. 224) of this court’s order in

Neal v. United States of America, 2010 WL 1752591 (D.Ariz. April

Case 2:90-cr-00003-RCB Document 231 Filed 08/02/10 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

1 As this court noted in Neal I, petitioner “is an habitual filer of

motions of various kinds all attacking, . . . his 1990 conviction and subsequent

sentence in 1991 of 55 years imprisonment for bank robbery and use of a firearm

during a crime of violence.” Id. at *1. Hence, use of the designation “Neal I”

is for brevity and in no way correlates to the number of motions which petitioner

has actually filed. 

- 2 -

29, 2010) (Doc. 223) (“Neal I”1). By letter filed May 17, 2010,

the Ninth Circuit advised petitioner that his payment of the

$455.00 docket fee for his Notice of Appeal was “past due[,]” and

that he had to “correct th[at] deficiency within 14 days.” Doc.

226 (emphasis in original). Otherwise, the Circuit Court informed

petitioner, his “[f]ailure to respond to th[at] order within the

time set out will result in dismissal of the appeal for failure to

prosecute.” Id. (citation omitted).

Petitioner did not follow the Ninth Circuit’s unequivocal

directions. Instead, on June 7, 2010, he filed in this district

court the pending IFP motion. Thereafter, on June 17, 2010, the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed an order noting “that the

filing and docketing fees for [petitioner’s] appeal remain[ed]

due.” United States v. Neal, 10-10236 (9th Cir. June 17, 2010)

(“Neal I”) (Doc. 3-1). The Ninth Circuit thus ordered petitioner

“[w]ithin 21 days after the date of th[at] order,” to “pay to the

district court the $445.00 filing and docketing fees for this

appeal and file in this court [the Ninth Circuit] proof of such

payment or file in this court [the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]

a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.” Id. (emphasis added). The

Ninth Circuit also advised petitioner that “[f]ailure to pay the

fees or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis shall result in

the automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk for failure to

prosecute.” Id. (citing 9th Cir. R. 42-1) (emphasis added). That

Case 2:90-cr-00003-RCB Document 231 Filed 08/02/10 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 -

order concluded by directing the Clerk to “serve a Form 4 financial

affidavit on [petitioner][,]” and that was done. Id., and Doc. 3-

2. In fact, after the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal of his appeal, on

July 21, 2010, petitioner filed that completed affidavit with the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Neal II,(Doc. 5). 

When petitioner did not timely comply with the Ninth Circuit’s

order, on July 14, 2010, it dismissed his appeal for failure to

prosecute. Doc. 229. After receiving petitioner’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis and accompanying affidavit, on July 27,

2010, the Ninth Circuit “construed th[at] motion in part as a

motion to reinstate []his appeal.” Neal II, Doc. 7. “So

construed,” the Ninth Circuit granted that motion. Id. The Court

thus vacated its July 14, 2010, order dismissing petitioner’s

appeal for failure to prosecute. See id. The Ninth Circuit

further indicated that “[t]he motion to proceed in forma pauperis

shall be addressed by separate order[]” of that Court.

Discussion

The Ninth Circuit’s recent reinstatement of petitioner’s

appeal, especially when coupled with petitioner’s pending IFP

motion in that Court, divests this court of jurisdiction to 

consider the IFP motion pending here. See Griggs v. Provident

Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d

225 (1982) (per curiam) (“The filing of a notice of appeal is an

event of jurisdictional 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.”) Therefore, the

court denies petitioner’s pending IFP motion for lack of

jurisdiction.

Case 2:90-cr-00003-RCB Document 231 Filed 08/02/10 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 -

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that petitioner’s “Motion to

Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis” (Doc. 227) is DENIED.

DATED this 2nd day of August, 2010.

Copies to counsel of record and petitioner pro se

Case 2:90-cr-00003-RCB Document 231 Filed 08/02/10 Page 4 of 4