1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 kkK* 4 JAMELLE L. RUSSELL, Case No. 3:23-CV-00549-ART-CLB 5 Plaintiff, | ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIO FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 6 V. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND 7 TIME TO RESPOND HENLY, et a/., 8 [ECF Nos. 38, 40] Defendants. 9 . 10 On August 20, 2025, Plaintiff Jamelle Russell filed a motion for leave to file a motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 38.) On September 3, 2025, Defendants filed a 42 | motion to extend time to respond to Russell’s motion. (ECF No. 40.) However, Defendants filed a notice of appeal on August 8, 2025, and thus this case is currently on appeal to 44| the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF Nos. 36, 37.) “Once a notice of appeal is filed, 15 the district court is divested of jurisdiction over the matters being appealed.” Natural 16 Resources Defense Council, Inc., v. Southwest Marine Inc.,

(9th 17 Cir. 2001) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.,

(1982) (per 48 curiam); McClatchy Newspapers v. Central Valley Typographical Union No. 46,

731, 734 (9th Cir. 1982)). Therefore, the Court cannot consider Plaintiff's motion for leave

20 to file a motion for injunctive relief because jurisdiction has been divested from the Court pending the resolution of the appeal. 21 Consequently, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion for injunctive relief, (ECF 22 No. 38) is DENIED and Defendants’ motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's 23 motion, (ECF No. 40), is also DENIED as MOOT. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: _ September 4, 2025 . 26 ‘ 27 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE