Gray v. Staley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
Linwood Gray, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil No. 14-cv-00937 (APM)
)
Harry Staley, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MODIFYING
ORDER DATED OCTOBER 22, 2015
On September 9, 2015, and September 16, 2015, Plaintiff Linwood Gray filed Motions to
Alter or Amend Judgment (collectively “Motions for Reconsideration”), ECF Nos. 34-35, which
were denied by the court on October 22, 2015, Order, ECF No. 41.
It recently has come to the court’s attention that it erroneously denied Plaintiff’s Motions
for Reconsideration, because the court lacked jurisdiction to do so in light of Plaintiff’s filing of a
notice of appeal. See United States v. DeFries, 129 F.3d 1293, 1302 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“The filing
of a notice of appeal, including an interlocutory appeal, ‘confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals
and divests the district court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.’”)
(quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam)).
Instead, what the court should have done was issue an indicative ruling that it would deny the
Motions for Reconsideration upon remand. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a). The court, therefore,
modifies its Order so as not to “den[y]” Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration, Order at 1, but to
indicate that the court would deny those Motions upon remand.
For the foregoing reasons, the court’s Order dated October 22, 2015, is modified as
described above.
Amit P. Mehta
Date: May 9, 2016 United States District Judge
2