Little Rock School et al v. Pulaski Cty School et al

Filing 4623

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

WESTERN DIVISION

LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT,

et al.

v.

PLAINTIFFS

Case No. 4:82-cv-866-DPM

NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et ale
LORENE JOSHUA, et al.

DEFENDANTS
INTERVENORS

ORDER
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.

Board of

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
prejudice.
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
-2­

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.
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

9/23/11

-3­