Riley v. Vizcarra
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Shannon Riley, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, moved for transcripts at government expense to support his appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Court denied the motion as moot because the Ninth Circuit had already dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Transcripts at Government Expense denied as moot“Thus, without a pending appeal, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED AS MOOT without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the underlying appeal was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit on the same day the order was issued. Because the purpose of the motion was to obtain transcripts for that specific appeal, and that appeal no longer exists, the motion is moot. Denying it without prejudice is the standard procedural response to allow the plaintiff to refile if a valid appeal is later taken. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It accurately recites the procedural history, including the dismissal of the appeal by the Ninth Circuit on the same day. The conclusion that the motion for transcripts is moot follows logically from the dismissal of the appeal. The court correctly cites the Ninth Circuit's reasoning (Rule 54(b) and Chacon) to explain why the appeal was dismissed, providing context for the mootness determination.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANNON RILEY, Case No.: 3:18-cv-2911-JAH-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. TRANSCRIPTS AT GOVERNMENT 14 VIZCARRA, EXPENSE 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 44] 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff Shannon Riley’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Transcripts at 18 Government Expense. ECF No. 44. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 19 filed his Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relating to incidents 20 that occurred while incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, 21 California. ECF No. 24. Defendants moved to dismiss certain claims, and the Court 22 dismissed all claims in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, except the First and Eighth 23 Amendment claims against Defendant Vizcarra arising from a March 18, 2018 incident. 24 ECF Nos. 28, 32, 37. Plaintiff filed a notice of his appeal to the Ninth Circuit on 25 July 8, 2020, seeking a reversal of the District Court’s order. ECF No. 40. 26 In the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks copies of the district court transcript to submit 27 to the Ninth Circuit with his appeal. ECF No. 44. Plaintiff argues that, without copies of 28 the district court filings, he will be unable to effectively litigate his appeal or respond to 1 Defendants’ appellate briefs. Jd. However, on July 23, 2020, the Ninth Circuit dismissed 2 || Plaintiff’s appeal because the order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. ECF 3 || No. 45 (citing FED. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 4 1981)). Thus, without a pending appeal, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED AS MOOT 5 || without prejudice. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
g Dated: July 23, 2020 □ 1 how Myolarve 9 Honorable Allison H. Goddard 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28