Little Rock School et al v. Pulaski Cty School et al
ORDER denying 4591 Motion for Ruling; denying 4593 Motion for Ruling for want of jurisdiction; and denying 4595 Motion for Ruling. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 9/23/11. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Case No. 4:82-cv-866-DPM
NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et ale
LORENE JOSHUA, et al.
The Joshua Intervenors' post-order motions under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 52 and 59, Document Nos. 4591 & 4593, are denied for want of
jurisdiction. The general rule is that a notice of appeal" divests the district
court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal."
Liddell ex reI. Liddell v. Board ofEducation ofthe City ofSt. Louis, 73 F.3d 819, 822
(8th Cir. 1996), quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.s. 56,
58 (1982). The aspects of this case involved in the pending appeal are
revealed by the appellate briefs filed by Joshua, the Pulaski County Special
School District, and the North Little Rock School District: Joshua defends this
Court's 19 May 2011 decision on the unitary-status issues (noting its pending
motions here), while the Districts attack, arguing that they are unitary.
Joshua's post-order motions in this Court seek additional and amended
findings and conclusions that neither North Little Rock nor Pulaski County
has done enough in various areas, especially on the achievement gap.
The general rule applies. This is not a situation where new facts have
developed - evolving circumstances that justify this Court exercising
continuing supervisory authority notwithstanding the appeal.
Education of St. Louis v. State ofMissouri, 936 F.2d 993, 995-96 (8th Cir. 1991).
This is not a case of enforcing an order during the appeal of that order. In re
Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 85 F.3d 372,375-76 (8th Cir.1996). Among
the fighting issues on appeal is whether this Court's recent decision about
unitary status for the North Little Rock and Pulaski County districts was
correct. This Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to revisit the particulars until
the mandate issues. Motions, Document Nos. 4591 & 4593, denied without
Joshua's alternative motion for indicative relief under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 62.1 is also denied. First, this Court has not yet digested the
lengthy record made on the unitary-status issues. Second, even if the Court
had an informed opinion at this point, it would exercise its discretion not to
express that opinion because these complicated and nuanced issues are ripe
for decision by the Court of Appeals. Motion, Document No. 4595, denied.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?