(PC) Fregia v. Miranda

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 8 — 9 MARK FREGIA, Case No. 1:21-cv-01068-JLT-BAM (PC) 10 Plaintiff, Appeal No. 23-15457 11 v. GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 12 MIRANDA, et al., OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 Defendants. (ECF No. 97) 14 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING 15 RESOLUTION OF PLAINTIFF’S INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 16 (ECF No. 97) 17 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO SERVE COPY OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 18 FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF AND COPY OF THIS 19 ORDER TO NINTH CIRCUIT — 20 — 21 I. Procedural Background 22 Plaintiff Mark Fregia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 23 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . This action proceeds against 24 Defendants Ridge and Savage based on Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants were deliberately 25 indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs by continuing to prescribe medications that caused 26 him to suffer lichen planus, and then failed to treat such skin condition. 27 Pending before the Court are Defendant Savage’s motion for summary judgment, (ECF 28 No. 75), and Defendant Ridge’s motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 81). As of October 21, 1 2022, both motions are fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 82, 85–88.) 2 On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice to the Court regarding his property. (ECF 3 No. 89.) Plaintiff then filed a request for emergency injunction and stay of further proceedings on 4 December 27, 2022, (ECF No. 90), and a motion for Defendant Ridge to obtain his own counsel 5 on January 5, 2023, (ECF No. 91). 6 In addressing the various filings, the Court found no merit to Plaintiff’s argument that the 7 Attorney General’s representation of Defendant Ridge created a conflict of interest, and denied 8 Plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings in this action due to allegations regarding confiscation 9 or destruction of Plaintiff’s legal property. (ECF No. 92 “March 8, 2023 order.”) Specifically, 10 the Court found that because the two pending summary judgment motions were fully briefed 11 before any of Plaintiff’s property was allegedly confiscated or destroyed, Plaintiff did not specify 12 what documents related to this action were still missing, and Plaintiff did not allege how he would 13 be prevented from litigating this case without the return or replacement of the unspecified 14 property, a stay was not warranted. (Id. at 3.) For similar reasons, and because the Court lacked 15 jurisdiction over other individuals employed at Mule Creek State Prison (who are not parties to 16 this action), the Court issued findings and recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s request for 17 injunctive relief. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff was directed to file any objections to the findings and 18 recommendations within fourteen days. (Id.) 19 On March 23, 2023, in lieu of objections, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal regarding the 20 Court’s March 8, 2023 order and findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 93.) Plaintiff’s 21 notice of appeal was processed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 24, 2023. (ECF 22 No. 94.) On April 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file his 23 “opposition” to the March 8, 2023 findings and recommendations until twenty-one days after the 24 ruling of the Ninth Circuit on his pending appeal. (ECF No. 97.) Plaintiff further requests an 25 extension of thirty days, to April 13, 2023, to file his statement of appeal or opening brief with the 26 Ninth Circuit. (Id.) 27 Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to file a response, but the Court finds a 28 response is unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 1 II. Request for Extension of Time to File Objections 2 As Plaintiff’s pending appeal is directly related to the Court’s March 8, 2023 findings and 3 recommendations, the Court finds good cause to grant the requested extension of time for 4 Plaintiff to file his objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). The Court further finds that Defendants will 5 not be prejudiced by the brief extension granted here. 6 Once the Ninth Circuit has resolved Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal, the Court will issue 7 an order resetting the deadline for Plaintiff to file his objections. 8 III. Stay of Action Pending Interlocutory Appeal 9 To the extent Plaintiff requests a stay of the entirety of this action pending resolution of 10 his interlocutory appeal, however, such request is denied. 11 “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers 12 jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects 13 of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 , 58 14 (1982). However, “[a]bsent a stay, an appeal seeking review of collateral orders does not deprive 15 the trial court of jurisdiction over other proceedings in the case, and an appeal of an interlocutory 16 order does not ordinarily deprive the district court of jurisdiction except with regard to the matters 17 that are the subject of the appeal. Britton v. Co-op Banking Group, 916 F.2d 1405, 1412 (9th Cir. 18 1990) (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation Sections 25.11, 25.16 (2d ed.)). Thus, before the 19 Court goes forward with the case, it must determine whether Plaintiff is seeking review of a 20 “collateral order” of the type discussed in Britton. If so, the Court and parties could proceed as 21 planned. If the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s motion is inextricably bound up with the merits of 22 this action, however, jurisdiction of all proceedings in this case are called into question and 23 proper prudence suggests this Court refrain from taking further action. See City of L.A., Harbor 24 Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he filing of a notice of 25 interlocutory appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over the particular issues involved in 26 that appeal.”) 27 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s appeal, which is directed only at the March 8, 2023 order 28 and findings and recommendations regarding the purported conflict of interest in the Attorney 1 General’s representation of Defendant Ridge and Plaintiff’s desire for a stay of this action 2 pending an investigation into his property issues, does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction over 3 other proceedings in this case, such as the pending summary judgment motions. Plaintiff has 4 presented no argument supporting the proposition that a decision by the Court of Appeals would 5 have a material impact on the merits of this action. Accordingly, a stay of this action pending 6 resolution of the appeal is not warranted. 7 IV. Request for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief 8 Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file his opening brief is not properly before 9 the District Court. See Fed. R. App. Pro. 26(b). The undersigned therefore declines to address 10 this request, and a copy of this order and Plaintiff’s motion will be served on the Ninth Circuit 11 Court of Appeals for resolution. Plaintiff is advised that, unless otherwise indicated by the 12 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, requests regarding his 13 pending appeal should be directed to the Ninth Circuit, rather than the District Court. 14 V. Order 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 16 1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file his objections to the March 8, 2023 findings 17 and recommendations, (ECF No. 97), is GRANTED; 18 2. Plaintiff’s request for a stay of this action pending resolution of his interlocutory appeal, 19 (ECF No. 97), is DENIED; 20 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of 21 time to file his opening brief, (ECF No. 97), and a copy of this order, to the Ninth Circuit 22 Court of Appeals. — 23 — IT IS SO ORDERED. — 24 — 25 Dated: April 17, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —