Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)

Citation: Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)
Parent Document: Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2018-05-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4502306/heriberto-rodriguez-v-county-of... ↗

Full Text

1,457 chars

time resulting from having the same issues before two courts
at the same time.” United States v. Claiborne, 727 F.2d 842,
850 (9th Cir. 1984). Though Griggs referred to the
“divestiture rule” as jurisdictional, the Supreme Court has
since made clear that “[o]nly Congress may determine a
lower federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.” Hamer v.
Neighborhood Hous. Services of Chicago, 138 S. Ct. 13, 17
(2017) (quoting Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 452 (2004)).
Accordingly, “jurisdictional” rules derived from sources other
than Congress are more accurately characterized as
“mandatory claim-processing rules” that may be applied in a
“less stern” manner than true jurisdictional rules. Id.
Consistent with this Supreme Court guidance, we have
created an exception to the “divestiture rule.” Recognizing
the importance of avoiding uncertainty and waste, but
concerned that the appeals process might be abused to run up
an adversary’s costs or to delay trial, we have authorized the
district court to go forward in appropriate cases by certifying
that an appeal is frivolous or waived. See, e.g., Chuman,
960 F.2d at 105 (qualified immunity); United States v.
LaMere, 951 F.2d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 1991) (double
jeopardy); Claiborne, 727 F.2d at 851 (separation of powers).
“In the absence of such certification,” however, “the district
court is automatically divested” of its authority “to proceed
with trial pending appeal.” Chuman, 960 F.2d at 105.

Other Sections in This Document (185)

Full Text