Stewart v. USA

Filing 13

OPINION AND ORDER denying 9 Motion for Status. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 5/14/2015. (cc: Stewart) (rmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff/Respondent,
vs.
JOVAN DEMONT STEWART,
Defendant/Petitioner.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 2:09-CR-43
2:13-CV-454

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Status,
filed by Defendant, Jovan Demont Stewart, on May 11, 2015.
#627.)

(DE

For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED for

lack of jurisdiction.
In his current motion, Stewart “Moves this Honorable Court for
the Status of his pending Motion before this Court entitled
‘PETITION FOR INTERVENTION OF THE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE PHILLIP (sic) P. SIMON FOR RECUSAL AND RECONSIDERATION
PURPOSES UNDER EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.”

(DE #627.)

On April 8, 2015, this Court denied both the Motion for
Recusal of United States District Court Judge Rudy Lozano (DE #618)
and the Petition for Intervention of the Chief United States
District

Judge

Phillip

[sic.]

P.

Simon

for

Recusal

and

Reconsideration Purposes Under Extraordinary Circumstances (DE

#619), noting that this Court had already ruled upon all of
Stewart’s previously filed motions. (See DE #620.) The Court also
pointed out that Stewart’s motion and petition did not meet the
statutory requirements for recusal and/or reassignment because he
did not file an affidavit and did not show that any alleged
personal bias stemmed from an extrajudicial source.

(Id.)

As

noted, the Court’s rulings in this case do not, by themselves,
constitute a reason to recuse or a reason for another judge to
intervene. (Id.) Despite Stewart’s statements to the contrary, no
motion or petition remained “pending” following this Court’s April
8, 2015, Opinion and Order.
On the same day he filed the instant Motion for Status,
Stewart filed an Amended Notice of Appeal.

(DE #628.)

In it, he

lists various orders that he is appealing, including the Court’s
April 8, 2015, Opinion and Order that denied both the Motion for
Recusal and the Petition for Intervention.

(Id. at p. 2.)1

Because the Court has already ruled upon both of those filings and
Stewart has filed an Amended Notice of Appeal as to those rulings,
this Court lacks jurisdiction to address the matter further.
The filing of a notice of appeal is an event
of jurisdictional significance — it confers
jurisdiction on the court of appeals and

1

Stewart has indicated that he “reserves the right to Amend and/or
Supplement and Consolidate any denial of (DE. 619) to this instant appeal.”
(DE #628, p. 2.) Although Stewart believes that the Petition for Intervention
remains pending before Chief Judge Simon, he is mistaken; that petition was
denied by this Court on April 8, 2015. (DE #620.)

2

divests the district court of its control over
those aspects of the case involved in the
appeal.
Only one court at a time has
jurisdiction over a subject. The point of the
rule is to avoid the confusion of placing the
same matter before two courts at the same time
and to preserve the integrity of the appeal
process.
United States v. Brown, 732 F.3d 781, 787 (7th Cir. 2013) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
Additionally, even if this Court did have jurisdiction to
address the matter, it would deny Stewart’s Motion for Status as
moot. As noted repeatedly above, the Petition for Intervention was
already denied, and nothing remains pending before either this
Court of Chief Judge Simon.

DATED:

May 14, 2015

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

3