Kinnard v. Navarro
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-02534
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Kinnard v. Navarro, Judge White denied Kinnard’s motions for lack of jurisdiction and denied a motion to appoint counsel without prejudice.
Kenneth Kinnard’s motions were denied for lack of jurisdiction. The defendant who sought appointment of counsel had that motion denied without prejudice.
What happened
In Kinnard v. Navarro, the court ruled on Kinnard’s motion asking to undo an earlier ruling and his motion to add a required party.
Kinnard filed both motions after he had already filed a notice of appeal. The court said it therefore lacked authority to consider them and denied both motions for lack of jurisdiction.
Judge Jeffrey White also denied the defendant’s motion to appoint counsel without prejudice, meaning the court did not bar that request from being made again.
The detailed version
- Kinnard v. Navarro · No. 4:22-cv-02534
- Jeffrey White
- Aug. 31, 2023
Background
The court considered Plaintiff Kenneth Kinnard’s Rule 60(b) motion, filed June 30, 2023, and his Rule 19 motion for joinder, filed July 10, 2023. A Rule 60(b) motion asks a court for relief from an earlier judgment or order. A Rule 19 joinder motion concerns adding a person who may be required for the case to proceed. The opinion states that Kinnard filed these motions after filing a notice of appeal.
Ruling
The court held that the notice of appeal deprived it of jurisdiction—its legal authority to consider the motions. It therefore denied Kinnard’s motions for lack of jurisdiction. The court also denied the defendant’s motion to appoint counsel without prejudice. The opinion does not identify which defendant filed that motion.
Effect
The order denied Kinnard’s Rule 60(b) and Rule 19 motions and denied the motion to appoint counsel without prejudice. The order does not describe the underlying claims or decide their merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.