Williams v. Ortega

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 3:18-cv-00547-LAB-MDD CDCR #AG-2394, ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO Plaintiff, 13 STAY CASE PENDING vs. INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL O. ORTEGA, et al., Defendants.

22 The Court on November 4, 2019 dismissed certain claims against defendants Melgoza and Kimani with prejudice, and one claim against Kimani without prejudice and with leave to amend. The Court gave Williams 21 days to amend the claim against Kimani that was dismissed without prejudice. Claims against other Defendants remain pending.

26 Williams then filed a notice of appeal, along with a request to stay the case until the appeal is adjudicated. (Docket no. 34.) Ordinarily, a notice of appeal divests the Court of jurisdiction over the matters appealed. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 || U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam). But a notice of appeal from a nonappealable interlocutory || order does not divest the Court of jurisdiction. Estate of Conners v. Meredith v. O’Connor, |16 F.3d 656, 658 (9% Cir. 1983); Ruby v. Secretary of the Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9® Cir. || 1966) (en banc).

5 The Court’s order requiring Williams to amend the claim that was dismissed without || prejudice remains in effect, except that the Court extends the time by an additional 21 ||calendar days. If he does not amend within the time permitted, the Court will treat that ||claim as abandoned. The motion to stay is DENIED.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

1] |}Dated: November 20, 2019 / Mb / 4. ‘4, MWY 13 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 14 Chief United States District Judge 2 oo