(PS) Harrell v. Belyea ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA NEIL HARRELL, No. 2:15-cv-00576 JAM AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MICHELLE BELYEA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter pro se, and accordingly this motion was referred to 18 the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). This order addresses plaintiff’s post-appeal 19 motion for subpoenas duces tecum (ECF No. 135) and two now-moot motions for extensions of 20 time that remain pending on the court’s docket (ECF Nos. 125, 127). 21 On February 13, 2019, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations in this case 22 recommending that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. ECF No. 120. On 23 March 11, 2019, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations, but on March 27, 24 2019, he also moved for an extension of time to file objections and simultaneously filed 25 additional objections. ECF Nos. 122, 125, 126. On April 8, 2019, plaintiff moved for an 26 extension of time to reply to defendant’s response to his objections; and on April 25, 2019, 27 without a ruling on the motion, he filed said reply. ECF Nos. 127, 129. Plaintiff’s March 27, 28 2019 and April 8, 2019 motions for extensions of time are therefore denied as moot. 1 On May 17, 2019, the court adopted the undersigned’s findings and recommendations, 2 | granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and issued judgment closing the case. ECF 3 | Nos. 130, 131. Plaintiff appealed the court’s judgment on July 15, 2019. ECF No. 132. On 4 | August 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for subpoenas duces tecum, seeking documents he intends 5 || to use to support his appeal. ECF No. 135. One of the requested subpoenas is directed toward 6 || defendant and seeks “A Complete copy of the records of the Courts [sic] file... □□ Id. at 3. 7 | Defendant opposes the motion. ECF No. 136. 8 The filing of a notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the 9 | district court of its jurisdiction over aspects of the case involved in the appeal. Rodriguez v. Cty. 10 | of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776, 790 (9th Cir. 2018). None of the limited exceptions to the 11 | divestiture rule apply here. The filing of plaintiffs notice of appeal divested the court of 12 | jurisdiction to issue the subpoenas, and plaintiff's motion must therefore be denied. Moreover, 13 || discovery closed over one year ago, and defendant is under no obligation to produce any further 14 || documents, much less the entire court record in this case. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiffs motions for extensions of time (ECF Nos. 125, 127) are DENIED as moot; 17 and 18 2. Plaintiffs motion for subpoenas duces tecum (ECF No. 135) is DENIED for lack of 19 jurisdiction. 20 || DATED: August 23, 2019 ~ 21 Chthien—Chare ALLISON CLAIRE 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28