(PC) Brummett v. Martinez ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN RAY BRUMMETT, JR., Case No. 1:21-cv-00086-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, Appeal No. 24-6736 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST 14 MARTINEZ, DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY OF RECORD DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 172) 16 17 Plaintiff Melvin Ray Brummett, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, proceeded pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. All parties consented to 19 Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 105.) 20 This matter proceeded to a jury trial on October 16, 2024, on Plaintiff’s claims against 21 Defendant Martinez (“Defendant”). On October 17, 2024, the jury returned with a verdict in 22 favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. (ECF No. 154, 165.) Judgment was entered 23 accordingly. (ECF No. 166.) On November 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 24 168.) The notice of appeal was processed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and assigned 25 Case Number 24-6736. (ECF Nos. 169, 170.) 26 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against Defendant’s attorney 27 of record, filed November 18, 2024. (ECF No. 172.) In the motion, Plaintiff sets forth arguments 28 which are also raised in his notice of appeal. (ECF No. 168, pp. 7–9.) 1 “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers 2 jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects 3 of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 4 (1982). Although the district court retains jurisdiction to resolve certain timely motions filed 5 under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before giving effect to a notice of appeal, Plaintiff 6 does not argue, nor does it appear, that Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions constitutes any of the 7 specified motions. See Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(a)(4). Rather, the arguments in the motion are 8 within the scope of the appeal pending before the Ninth Circuit. 9 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against Defendant’s attorney of record, (ECF 10 No. 172), is HEREBY DENIED, due to lack of jurisdiction. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: November 19, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28