BROWN v. CREWS, 08-280-KSF. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Kentucky
Number: infdco20120523b69
Visitors: 9
Filed: May 22, 2012
Latest Update: May 22, 2012
Summary: OPINION & ORDER KARL S. FORESTER, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court upon two motions of the petitioner, Karen Brown. Brown's first motion, the motion to alter or amend judgment as to the denial of a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [DE #43], and her second motion, for leave to appeal in forma pauperis [DE #46], were both filed on April 27, 2012. On the same day, Brown also filed her notice of appeal to the United S
Summary: OPINION & ORDER KARL S. FORESTER, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court upon two motions of the petitioner, Karen Brown. Brown's first motion, the motion to alter or amend judgment as to the denial of a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [DE #43], and her second motion, for leave to appeal in forma pauperis [DE #46], were both filed on April 27, 2012. On the same day, Brown also filed her notice of appeal to the United St..
More
OPINION & ORDER
KARL S. FORESTER, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the Court upon two motions of the petitioner, Karen Brown. Brown's first motion, the motion to alter or amend judgment as to the denial of a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [DE #43], and her second motion, for leave to appeal in forma pauperis [DE #46], were both filed on April 27, 2012. On the same day, Brown also filed her notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [DE #44]. The filing of a notice of appeal operates to divest the district court of jurisdiction until the Court of Appeals remands the case. See United States v. Garcia-Robles, 562 F.3d 763, 767 (6th Cir. 2009); Dunham v. United States, 486 F.3d 931, 935 (6th Cir. 2007). As a result, this Court no longer has jurisdiction over this matter. Therefore, Brown's motions [DE #43 and #46] are DENIED.
Source: Leagle
