Filed: May 08, 2014
Latest Update: May 08, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN A. ROSS, District Judge. This closed matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's pro se motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 88), motion for reconsideration and/or notice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc. No. 98), "motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum" (Doc. 102), and "motion under imminent danger." (Doc. No. 103) Plaintiff filed this pro se action on February 3, 2000 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. He alleged that he was arrested witho
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN A. ROSS, District Judge. This closed matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's pro se motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 88), motion for reconsideration and/or notice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc. No. 98), "motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum" (Doc. 102), and "motion under imminent danger." (Doc. No. 103) Plaintiff filed this pro se action on February 3, 2000 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. He alleged that he was arrested withou..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN A. ROSS, District Judge.
This closed matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's pro se motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 88), motion for reconsideration and/or notice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc. No. 98), "motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum" (Doc. 102), and "motion under imminent danger." (Doc. No. 103)
Plaintiff filed this pro se action on February 3, 2000 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that he was arrested without a warrant, was not given a prompt probable cause hearing following his arrest, and that defendants conspired to hold him in jail without an arrest warrant, all in violation of his constitutional rights. On September 28, 2001, the court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. (Doc. No. 55). On April 18, 2013, over eleven years after the court entered its Judgment, plaintiff filed a motion for Rule 60 relief. The Court denied the motion as time barred on January 31, 2014. (Doc. No. 87)
The Court notes that at the same time Plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration, he also filed a notice of appeal of the denial of his Rule 60 motion. (Doc. No. 89) Upon the filing of the notice of appeal, this Court lost jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's motions. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (holding that "filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it 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."). As such, the Court will not accept any additional filings from plaintiff in this matter.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration [88], motion for reconsideration and/or notice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals [98], "motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum" [102], and "motion under imminent danger" [103] are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not accept any additional motions or documents from plaintiff for filing in this action. All documents and motions mailed to the Court by plaintiff shall be returned as set forth in this Memorandum and Order.
