Arellano v. Self

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAUL ARELLANO, Case No.: 15-cv-2300-AJB-LL Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF RAUL v. ARELLANO’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR R. OLSON, 14 RECONSIDERATION (Doc. No. 93) Defendant.

1 On September 23, 2019, the Court issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s ||Report and Recommendation, granting Defendant R. Olson’s motion for summary ||judgment, and dismissing Plaintiff Raul Arellano’s (“Plaintiff”) Second Amended ||Complaint. (Doc. No. 82.) On October 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the || United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, appealing this Court’s September 23, 6 order. (Doc. No. 88.) On November 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file ||a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s September 23, 2019 order. (Doc. No. 93.)

8 || However, appearing that Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the same order Plaintiff seeks 9 have reconsidered, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to consider □□□□□□□□□□□ || motion for reconsideration. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 654 (9th 11 1991) (stating that district courts lack jurisdiction after notice of appeal is filed).

12 || Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

13 || IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 |}Dated: December 11, 2019 Q 16 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 17 United States District Judge