Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cr-00131/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cr-00131-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Brandau
Defendant
USA
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v. 

JOHN BRANDAU, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

1:06-CR-00131 OWW 

1:06-CR-00175 OWW 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RE: JURISDICTION OVER

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

IN THE BRANDAU CASE AND

SETTING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

HEARING IN THE CARR CASE.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v. 

CHRISTINA ANN CARR, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

Before the court for decision is a joint motion for

reconsideration filed by John Brandau and Christian A. Carr,

challenging aspects of a August 10, 2006 memorandum decision and

order regarding the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of California’s General Order 441 (GO 441), which

requires full shackling of all in-custody defendants at initial

appearances before magistrate judges. 

Defendant Brandau was arrested in Yosemite National Park on

misdemeanor charges and made his initial appearance before the

magistrate at the Yosemite courthouse. Defendant Carr selfsurrendered to the United States Marshals at the Fresno

courthouse and made her initial appearance before a magistrate in

Fresno. Both appeared before the magistrates in shackles

Case 1:06-cr-00131-OWW Document 38 Filed 08/25/06 Page 1 of 3
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

pursuant to GO 441. Defendants, through counsel, requested to be

unshackled, but their requests were denied by the presiding

magistrate judges, citing GO 441. 

Brandau and Carr, along with a third Defendant, John Evans,

1:06-cr-00051, who made his initial appearance in Yosemite prior

to the passage of GO 441, appealed the magistrates’ shackling

rulings to the district court. Three sets of motions were heard

by the district court on August 8, 2006. All three defendants

moved to recuse all of the Eastern District of California

district judges. (Doc. 9, Brandau’s recusal motion, filed Jun.

7, 2006; Carr Doc. 10, filed Jun. 9, 2006; Evans Doc. 1, filed

Jun. 14, 2006.) Defendants Carr and Brandau also joined in a

motion for injunctive relief, specifically requesting an order

prohibiting the enforcement of General Order 441 while this

appeal is pending. (Doc. 14, filed Jun. 23, 2006; Carr Doc. 14,

filed June 28, 2006.) Finally, Brandau’s appeal was deemed ripe

for decision, while the other two Defendants’ appeals are still

pending. (Doc. 7, filed May 26, 2006; Doc. 16, filed June 28,

2006; Doc. 26, filed July 24, 2006.)

A memorandum decision and order issued August 10, 2006,

addressed all of these motions. (Brandau Doc. 30.) The joint

motion for recusal was denied. (Id. at 18-29.) Brandau’s appeal

was granted on the ground that GO 441 was promulgated without

appropriate public notice and opportunity to comment, and GO 441

was remanded to the district court for re-promulgation. The rule

was rescinded with respect to its operation in Bakersfield,

Redding, and Yosemite, but was permitted to remain in force

during remand for the Sacramento and Fresno courthouses. (Id. at

Case 1:06-cr-00131-OWW Document 38 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 3
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

29-43, 44.) The motions for injunctive relief pending conclusion

of the appeal were denied as moot. (Id. at 43.)

On August 11, 2006, one day after the issuance of the

challenged memorandum decision, Brandau filed a notice of appeal. 

(Brandau Doc. 31.) No notice of appeal has been filed in the

Carr case. The joint motion for reconsideration was filed in the

Brandau and Carr cases on August 14, 2006. (Brandau Doc. 32;

Carr Doc. 29.) 

A district court loses jurisdiction to consider a motion for

reconsideration that is filed after a timely notice of appeal. 

Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Company, 459 U.S. 56, 59

(1982); United States v. Sprague, 135 F.3d 1301, 1307 (9th Cir.

1998). Accordingly, the district court cannot consider 

Brandau’s motion for reconsideration, as it was filed after her

timely-filed notice of appeal. However, the motion for

reconsideration will be considered in the Carr case, as no notice

of appeal has yet been filed in that case. 

The government opposes the motion for reconsideration and

has “cross-moved” for reconsideration on a separate issue. Both

cross motions for reconsideration in the Carr case are set for

hearing on September 12, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2. 

Defendant Carr shall file opposition to the cross-motion on or

before September 8, 2006. 

SO ORDERED

DATED: August 25, 2006

 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:06-cr-00131-OWW Document 38 Filed 08/25/06 Page 3 of 3