Rouse et al v. Michigan, State of et al
Filing
28
OPINION and ORDER Denying the Motions for Rehearing 20 , 22 , the Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs on Appeal 23 and the Motion for Release on Habeas 25 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ARTHUR J. ROUSE, et. Al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 2:17-CV-12276
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
STATE OF MICHIGAN, et. Al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS FOR REHEARING
(Dkt. ## 20, 22), THE APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS ON APPEAL (Dkt. # 23), AND THE
MOTION FOR RELEASE ON HABEAS (Dkt. # 25).
The seven incarcerated plaintiffs filed a proposed class action
complaint and a petition for a writ of mandamus and a writ of habeas
corpus. The joint petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed without
prejudice on August 8, 2017. On October 25, 2017, this Court dismissed
the complaint and the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice
because the plaintiffs failed to comply with an order to correct a deficiency
in this case.
Plaintiffs Rouse and Merriman have filed several motions, as well as
Notices of Appeal with the Sixth Circuit. For the reasons that follow, the
1
plaintiffs ’ motions are DENIED.
This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs’ motion for
rehearing or to alter or amend the pleadings because the plaintiffs have
filed notices of appeal in this case (Dkt. ## 21, 22). A notice of appeal
generally “confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the
district court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the
appeal.” Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470
U.S. 373, 379 (1985)(citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.,
459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)( per curiam )); See also Workman v. Tate, 958 F.
2d 164, 167 (6th Cir. 1992). Because the plaintiffs filed notice of appeals,
this Court lacks jurisdiction to amend its original opinion and order to
consider the merits of their motions. Workman, 958 F. 2d at 167-68; See
also Raum v. Norwood, 93 F. App'x. 693, 695 (6th Cir. 2004)(Plaintiffs
deprived district court of jurisdiction over their motion for reconsideration by
filing notice of appeal before district court had chance to make decision on
motion to reconsider).
Likewise, because jurisdiction of this action was transferred from the
district court to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upon the filing of the
notices of appeal, Plaintiff Merriman’s application to proceed in forma
2
pauperis on appeal would be more appropriately addressed to the Sixth
Circuit. See Grizzell v. State of Tennessee, 601 F. Supp. 230, 232 (M.D.
Tenn. (1984).
Finally, this Court indicated when it dismissed the joint petition for writ
of habeas corpus that each plaintiff in this case was free to each file their
own separate habeas petition challenging their own convictions. This
Court will thus deny plainitff Rouse’s motion for release on habeas corpus
without prejudice to him filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a
separate case.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions for rehearing (Dkt. ## 20,
22), the application to proceed without fees and costs on appeal (Dkt. # 23)
and the motion for release on habeas corpus (Dkt. # 25) are DENIED.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: December 19, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record on December 19, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary
mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager
3
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?