(HC) Phea v. Pfeiffer ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 MALANJE PHEA, No. 2:20-cv-00283 WBS GGH P 13 Petitioner, 14 v. ORDER 15 CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden, 16 Respondent. 17 18 ----oo0oo---- 19 Petitioner has filed an application for a writ of 20 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was 21 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On February 17, 2021, the magistrate judge filed 24 findings and recommendations recommending dismissing petitioner’s 25 habeas petition. (Docket No. 52.) Petitioner filed objections 26 to the February 17, 2021 findings and recommendations. (Docket 27 Nos. 55, 58.) Petitioner then filed a “Timely Notice of Appeal 28 1 and Request for a Certificate of Appealability”.1 (Docket No. 2 59). 3 Before the initial Notice of Appeal was filed, on March 4 12, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 5 recommending denying petitioner’s motion to stay. (Docket No. 6 63.) Neither party filed objections to the March 12, 2021 7 findings and recommendations. Petitioner the filed a second 8 “Timely Notice of Appeal and Request for a Certificate of 9 Appealability”, which appears substantially similar to the prior 10 Notice of Appeal. (Docket No. 65.) 11 While it is unclear what exactly the petitioner is 12 appealing, it appears that he is challenging the magistrate 13 judge’s February 17, 2021 findings and recommendations 14 recommending that his petition be denied, and seeks Ninth Circuit 15 review of those findings and recommendations, separate from his 16 objections that he previously filed. Given the timing of the 17 second notice of appeal, he may also be appealing the 18 recommendation that his request to stay be denied. 19 “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of 20 jurisdictional significance--it confers jurisdiction on the court 21 of appeals and divests the district court of its control over 22 those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. 23 Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). Given 24 petitioner’s appeal, this court has been divested of its 25 jurisdiction to review both the February 17, 2021 findings and 26 27 1 The court expresses no opinion as to whether the Notice of Appeal was in fact “timely”, but states the full name of the 28 petitioner’s filing as listed in the caption of the document. eee ene EE I EINE IIE IIE II SIGE OI ESE OE 1 recommendations and the March 12, 2021 findings and 2 recommendations. Accordingly, the court declines to address the 3 | pending findings and recommendations at this time, and all 4 proceedings are hereby STAYED pending resolution of the appeal. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 | Dated: April 15, 2021 he bloom HK Ad. bE 7 WILLIAM B. SHUBB 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