Douglas v. Hill
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 1986) (internal quotat
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Douglas v. Hill (2025-02-10) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Patrick C. Douglas filed a request for leave for discovery after the district court had already denied his habeas petition, entered judgment, and received his notice of appeal. The court denied the request, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the discovery request because the notice of appeal divested the district court of control over the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Petitioner's Request for Leave for Discovery (ECF No. 29)“Based on the above, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner’s Request for Leave for Discovery (ECF No. 29) due to Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal and DENIES the Request on that basis.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the well-established principle that a properly filed notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over the case, except for specific statutory exceptions. The court correctly identified that a request for discovery is not an enumerated motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) that allows the district court to retain jurisdiction. Furthermore, the request did not seek to alter the judgment, so it could not be construed as a Rule 59 motion. Therefore, the denial based on lack of jurisdiction is legally sound. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the jurisdictional issue. It correctly cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the divestiture of jurisdiction upon filing a notice of appeal. It systematically rules out the potential exceptions (Rule 4(a)(4)(A) enumerated motions, Rule 59 construction, and ancillary matters) with appropriate citations. The reasoning is complete and legally accurate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICK C. DOUGLAS, Case No.: 22-CV-884-JLS (BGS)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 13 v. REQUEST FOR LEAVE FOR 14 RICK HILL, Warden, et al., DISCOVERY 15 Respondents. (ECF No. 29) 16 17 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Patrick C. Douglas’ Request for Leave for 18 Discovery (“Request,” ECF No. 29).1 In its December 5, 2023 Order (“Order,” ECF No. 19 27), the Court denied Petitioner’s First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 20 (“FAP,” ECF No. 17) and issued a Certificate of Appealability as to all claims. The Clerk 21 entered judgment on December 6. See ECF No. 28. One week later, the Court received 22 the Request from Petitioner. See Request. The envelope filed alongside the Request 23 indicates that Petitioner mailed the Request on December 10—after this Court entered its 24 judgment. See Request at 20. Petitioner then filed a Notice of Appeal of this Court’s 25 judgment. ECF No. 30. 26 27 28 1 All citations to the Request refer to the blue page numbers affixed to the top right corner of each page 1 A properly filed notice of appeal “confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and 2 divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” 3 United States v. Edwards, 800 F.2d 878, 883 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks 4 omitted) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per 5 curiam)). By issuing its Order denying the FAP, this Court determined that it could resolve 6 the FAP without resort to either an evidentiary hearing or further fact-finding. See 7 generally Order. Because Petitioner’s Request asks for leave to conduct further fact- 8 finding, see Request at 1–13, it concerns aspects of the case involved in Petitioner’s appeal 9 of this Court’s judgment and Order. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over 10 Petitioner’s Request unless an “exception[] to the rule that a notice of appeal deprives the 11 district court of jurisdiction” applies. Edwards, 800 F.2d at 883. 12 No such exception applies. Though Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) 13 contemplates that a district court may exercise jurisdiction despite a notice of appeal to 14 dispose of enumerated motions for post-judgment relief, see United Nat. Ins. Co. v. R&D 15 Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001), a request for discovery is not an 16 enumerated motion, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). And as Petitioner’s Request does not 17 mention—let alone ask this Court to alter or issue relief from—its judgment and Order, the 18 Court cannot construe Petitioner’s Request as a request for post-judgment relief. See Sea 19 Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 20 1976) (construing a motion as one brought under Rule 59 when it “requested relief which 21 might have been granted” pursuant to said Rule). Finally, discovery is not an ancillary 22 matter. See Edwards, 800 F.2d at 884. 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Based on the above, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain 2 || Petitioner’s Request for Leave for Discovery (ECF No. 29) due to Petitioner’s Notice of 3 || Appeal and DENIES the Request on that basis. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ||Dated: January 10, 2024 . tt f Le 6 on. Janis L. Sammartino 4 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28