Emrit v. Hunter Medical Systems, Inc.

Filing 26

INDICATIVE RULING:The Court requests the Fifth Circuit REMAND the matter pursuant to Rule 12.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure so that the Court may vacate its prior 23 Order dismissing this action with prejudice. A review of Plaint iffs most recent pleading reveals the addition of two email addresses that were not previously provided to the Court. The Clerk of Court is hereby ORDERED to add the following email addresses to the docket [e-mail] and wilbu [e-mail]. In the future, all updates to contact information shall be submitted by Plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of Local Civil Rule 11 and the 4 Pro Se E-Service & E-Notice Consent Form, which Plaintiff previously signed. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 7/17/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CIVIL ACTION

RONALD SATISH EMRIT
VERSUS

NO. 14-00608-BAJ-RLB

HUNTER MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
INDICATIVE RULING

On June 24, 2015, this Court ordered Ronald Satish Emrit ("Plaintiff') to
show cause, in writing, within seven days of the filing of the order why the Middle
District of Louisiana was the proper venue for this action. (Doc. 22). The order was
docketed and electronically mailed to Plaintiff on June 25, 2015. On July 6, 2015,
this Court then ordered that the above-captioned action be dismissed with prejudice
for failure to comply with this Court's order to show cause. (Doc. 23). On July 10,
2015, the Clerk of Court received Plaintiffs Response to the Order to Show Cause
(Doc. 24) via the United States Postal Service.
Considering that Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, and thus, does not have the
ability to file his documentation via the electronic filing system, the Court finds th at
the

previously imposed

seven-day

deadline

was

unreasonable

under

the

circumstances. Therefore, the Court should have excused the untimely nature of
Plaintiffs respon se.
Plaintiff subsequently appealed this Court's Order on July 13, 2015, to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. (Doc. 25) .

USCA - certified

As a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests th e dis trict court of
jurisdiction over aspects of the case involved in the appeal. S ee Griggs v. Provident
Consumer Discotmt Co. , 459 U.S. 56, 56 (1982). In t he Fifth Circuit, however, Rule
60(b) motions prese nt an exception to that rule. Accordingly, the Co urt will treat
the filing of Plaintiffs response after the issuance of the dis missal as a lVIotion for
Reconsideration unde r Rule 60(b).
Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:
If a timely motion is made for relief th at the court lacks authority to
grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending. the
court m ay:
(1) defer considering the motion;
(2) deny the motion; or
(3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals
remands for that pul'pose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.
Thus, "to gr ant such a motion, the distri ct court must ask leave of the appellate
cou1·t, or request a remand, because a n appeal, of course. trans fers jurisdiction over
the case to the court of appeals." Silva v. Harris Cnty., 5 F.3d 1496 (5th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, the Court now reques ts that the Fifth Circuit REMAND the
matter pursuan t to Rule 12.1 of t he Feder al Rules of Appellate Procedure so that
the Court may vacate its prior Order (Doc. 23) dismissing this action with prejudice.
Fur ther , a review of Plaintiffs most recent pleading reveals the addition of
two email addresses that were not previously provided to the Court. The Clerk of
Court is hereby ORDERED to add the following email addresses to the docket:
[e-mail] and wilbura ndch [e-mail]. In the future,
all updates to contact informa tion sha lJ be ubmitted by Plaintiff in accordance with

the provisions of Local Civil Rule 11 1 and the Pro Se E -Service & E-Notice Consent
Form, which Plaintiff previously signed. (Doc. 4).

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this

1 l~ay of July, 20 15.

Local Civil Rule 11 provides that each pro se litigant "has a continuing obligation to apprise the
Court of any address change." The mere inclusion of changes to contact information on the signature
line of pleadings is insufficient to satisfy this obligation. Direct notification is required.
1