1

2

3

4 5

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOM MARK FRANKS, Case No. 1:15-cv-00401-EPG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO

13 v. COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14 KIRK, et al., (ECF NO. 120)

15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff Tom Mark Franks (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A jury trial was held on July 19 and 20, 19 2018, after which the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants, Deputy Sheriff Max Wigt, 20 Deputy Sheriff Ryan Mauldin, and Lieutenant Timothy Kirk, and against Plaintiff, Tom Mark 21 Franks. (ECF No. 103.) Plaintiff then filed a motion for a new trial, which the Court denied. (ECF 22 Nos. 107, 112.) Plaintiff then appealed the judgment and the denial of his motion for a new trial 23 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 113.) That appeal remains 24 pending. 25 On June 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion asking this Court to appoint pro bono counsel for 26 him. (ECF No. 120.) He argues that he is wholly indigent, ignorant of the law, has only a sixth- 27 grade education, must seek the help of untrained law library clerks to complete any legal 28 documents, and that the issues in this matter are complex. 1 Generally, the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction with 2 || respect to all matters involved in the appeal. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 3 | U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam); Bermudez v. Duenas, 936 F.2d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 1991); 4 | Gould v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 772 (9th Cir. 1986); Scott 5 | v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir. 1984); Davis v. United States, 667 F.2d 822, 824 (9th 6 | Cir. 1982) 7 Here, once Plaintiff filed his timely notice of appeal, this Court was divested of g || justification of all matters related to the appeal. Accordingly, as Plaintiff's request for counsel g | clearly concerns the appeal, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it and will deny it without 10 || prejudice on that basis. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs “Motion for Appointment of 12 | Counsel” is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 15 | Dated: _ September 26, 2019 [see hey — 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28