(HC) Phea v. Pfeiffer

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- MALANJE PHEA, No. 2:20-cv-00283 WBS GGH P 13 Petitioner, 14 v. ORDER CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden, 16 Respondent.

18 ----oo0oo---- 19 Petitioner has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was 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 findings and recommendations recommending dismissing petitioner’s habeas petition. (Docket No. 52.) Petitioner filed objections to the February 17, 2021 findings and recommendations. (Docket Nos. 55, 58.) Petitioner then filed a “Timely Notice of Appeal and Request for a Certificate of Appealability”.1 (Docket No. 59).

3 Before the initial Notice of Appeal was filed, on March 12, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations recommending denying petitioner’s motion to stay. (Docket No. 63.) Neither party filed objections to the March 12, 2021 findings and recommendations. Petitioner the filed a second “Timely Notice of Appeal and Request for a Certificate of Appealability”, which appears substantially similar to the prior Notice of Appeal. (Docket No. 65.)

11 While it is unclear what exactly the petitioner is appealing, it appears that he is challenging the magistrate judge’s February 17, 2021 findings and recommendations recommending that his petition be denied, and seeks Ninth Circuit review of those findings and recommendations, separate from his objections that he previously filed. Given the timing of the second notice of appeal, he may also be appealing the recommendation that his request to stay be denied.

19 “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance--it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). Given petitioner’s appeal, this court has been divested of its jurisdiction to review both the February 17, 2021 findings and 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 petitioner’s filing as listed in the caption of the document. eee ene EE I EINE IIE IIE II SIGE OI ESE OE recommendations and the March 12, 2021 findings and recommendations. Accordingly, the court declines to address the | pending findings and recommendations at this time, and all 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