Akins-Brakefield v. Philip Services Corporation

Filing 34

ORDER DENYING 32 Second MOTION to Reinstate filed by Stavena Akins-Brakefield and DENYING 33 Second MOTION to Reinstate filed by Stavena Akins-Brakefield. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 2/13/2009. (ssd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS STAVENA AKINS-BRAKEFIELD, Plaintiff, vs. PHILIP SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL NO. 08-438-GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge: Plaintiff has filed two seemingly identical "Second Rule 60(b) Motion[s] to Reinstate" (Docs. 32, 33). The general rule is that the filing of a notice of appeal deprives the district court of jurisdiction over the case. See, e.g., Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982) (per curiam); Kusay v. United States, 62 F.3d 192 (7th Cir. 1995). The Seventh Circuit holds, however, that the district court has the power to deny, but not to grant, a motion filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) while an appeal is pending. Boyko v. Anderson, 185 F.3d 672, 675 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing cases). Plaintiff has not presented any substantial argument that this Court abused its discretion in denying her first Rule 60(b) motion. Plaintiff's "second" Rule 60(b) motions (Docs. 32, 33) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 02/13/09 s/ ZA ctàÜ|v~ `âÜÑ{ç G. PATRICK MURPHY United States District Judge