Russell v. Lashbrook
Russell v. Lashbrook
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SANTOIN RUSSELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 19-cv-963-DWD ) ) JACKLYN LASHBROOK, ) ) Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DUGAN, District Judge Plaintiff filed a Complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983alleging failure to protect him from an assault while at Menard Correctional Center. (Doc. 1). Defendants John and Jane Doe were dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to identify them by the scheduled deadline. (Doc. 19). After an evidentiary hearing on March 22, 2021, the Court granted remaining Defendant Lashbrook’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Doc. 30). Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 32), which indicates that he is indigent and requested appointment of counsel. The Court granted him leave to proceed IFP on appeal, but denied his request for counsel as beyond its jurisdiction. (Doc. 37). Plaintiff has now filed a “Motion for Reconsideration on Terminate Motions April 19, 2021 and Supplement Notice of Appeal on Granted Summary Judgment.” (Doc. 38). The Motion is DENIED. To the extent the Motion seeks reconsideration from this Court regarding entry of summary judgment, it is beyond the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction. Generally, a party's filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal. May v. Sheahan,
226 F.3d 876, 879(7th Cir. 2000). An
exception is made for motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60 filed within 28 days of entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. Pro. 4(a)(4)(A). However, this Motion was filed 38 days after entry of judgement. Without jurisdiction, the Court cannot grant any such relief. Similarly, to the extent Plaintiff is asking 1. to reconsider the denial of his request for counsel on appeal or 2. supplement his Notice of Appeal, those are also “aspects of
the case involved in the appeal” and therefore matters for the Court of Appeals to decide. Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 38) is therefore DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 5/14/2021
/s/ David W. Dugan_______ United States District Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown