Wofford v. Gable et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
NICO WOFFORD,
Petitioner,
vs.
CRAIG GABLE, TSCI Warden; and ROB
JEFFREYS, NDCS Director;
Respondents.
8:23CV464
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Nico Wofford’s “Motion for Extension
of Time to file Response to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
denial of his application for a certificate of appealability.” Filing No. 43 (spelling
corrected; capitalization altered). On October 2, 2025, Petitioner filed an appeal of this
Court’s Memorandum and Order, Filing No. 34, and Judgment, Filing No. 35, dated
September 9, 2025, dismissing his habeas petition with prejudice. Filing No. 36. On
November 3, 2025, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals entered a judgment denying
Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability and dismissing his appeal. Filing
No. 42. Petitioner’s present motion, which is dated November 14, 2025, requests a
thirty to sixty day extension of time “to file a response to the courts for the denial of his
application for a certificate of appealability” due to his limited access to the law library
and legal aid assistance. Filing No. 43.
As a general rule, a federal district court and a federal court of appeals should
not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a case simultaneously, and the filing of a notice of
appeal 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. Hunter v. Underwood,
8:23-cv-00464-JFB-PRSE Doc # 44 Filed: 11/25/25 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
362 F.3d 468, 475 (8th Cir. 2004). Thus, to the extent Petitioner seeks relief from this
Court with respect to the denial of his certificate of appealability, his motion is denied
without prejudice as this Court lacks jurisdiction over his request. To the extent
Petitioner actually seeks relief from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court shall
direct the Clerk of Court to forward his motion to the Circuit Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner’s motion for extension of time, Filing No. 43, is denied without
prejudice to the extent Petitioner seeks relief in this Court.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit Plaintiff’s motion, Filing No. 43,
and a copy of this order to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals as a supplement to
Petitioner’s notice of appeal.
Dated this 25th day of November, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge
8:23-cv-00464-JFB-PRSE Doc # 44 Filed: 11/25/25 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>