IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 23, 2009
RONALD ADAMS, PLAINTIFF,
SCOTT KERNAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 13, 2009, the magistrate judge recommended that defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and that plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order be denied. The magistrate judge gave the parties fourteen days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations.
On March 26, 2009, plaintiff filed a request for a thirty day extension of time to file and serve objections to the findings and recommendations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). On March 30, 2009, the magistrate judge denied the request for lack of good cause because the request did not state why the extension was needed, what plaintiff had done so far to draft and file objections, or what the basis of any objections might be.
In an order filed March 31, 2009, the undersigned adopted the March 13, 2009 findings and recommendations and dismissed this action. The same day, judgment was entered in favor of defendants. Nonetheless, on April 3, 2009, plaintiff filed another request for a 30-day extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations, arguing that he has limited access to the prison law library.
However, on April 10, 2009, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal of the final judgment in this action to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and on April 13, 2009, the appeal was processed to the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, this court no longer has jurisdiction to consider the merits of petitioner's claims. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, (1982) (per curiam) ("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."); Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930, 935 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, petitioner's request for an extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations is denied.*fn1