McCoy

Filing 22

ORDER denying 18 Motion for Reconsideration and denying 19 Motion for Indicative Ruling. Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on September 10, 2020. (EHP)

Case 3:20-cv-00082-DPJ-FKB Document 22 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
LINDA HAYS MCCOY

APPELLANT

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-82-DPJ-FKB

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

APPELLEE

ORDER
This bankruptcy appeal is before the Court on two motions filed by pro se Appellant
Linda Hays McCoy “to reconsider order denying relief from a judgment or order” [18] and “for
indicative ruling on motion for relief that is barred by a pending appeal and Plaintiff’s Rule
60(b)” [19]. 1 Appellee has responded [20] in opposition.
Both motions take issue with the Court’s August 12, 2020 Order [17], explaining that
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 is not applicable. Order [17] at 1. The Court pointed out that
“[t]he proper procedure for challenging the Final Judgment is this currently pending (and fully
briefed) bankruptcy appeal.” Id.
Appellee now asks the Court to reconsider its prior Order [17], again asserting that it may
grant her relief from the Bankruptcy Court’s judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
Mot. [18] at 2; see id. at 4 (asking that she “be granted relief from the order of the Bankruptcy
Court”); Mot. [19] at 3 (invoking Rule 60). But as said before, Rule 60 does not apply; the way
to challenge the judgment is through appeal—which she has already filed. Her motions [18, 19]
are denied. 2

1

Capitalization altered.

McCoy also invokes Rule 62.1, which allows a district court faced with a Rule 60(b) motion
challenging its own ruling that is currently on appeal to defer, deny, or state its position that it
“would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises
a substantial issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)(3); see id. at advisory committee notes to 2009
2

Case 3:20-cv-00082-DPJ-FKB Document 22 Filed 09/10/20 Page 2 of 2

McCoy also suggests that she wishes to present additional evidence in support of her
appeal. Mot. [18] at 3 (detailing “new evidence”); Mot. [19] at 4 (“McCoy is filing the
additional evidence so that it will be a part of her record and that it will be considered as a
substantial issue.”). As explained in the Court’s August 11, 2020 Order [15], “[d]iscovery
during an appeal is not permitted because the reviewing court is limited to the record developed
in the lower court.” Order [15] at 2 (collecting cases).
While the Court recognizes that it can be challenging for pro se litigants to navigate the
judicial process, McCoy’s habit of filing motions [5, 16, 18, 19] is not advancing her appeal.
She is again cautioned that her bankruptcy appeal is pending and will be considered in due
course; no further action or filing is appropriate at this time.
McCoy’s motions [18, 19] are denied.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 10th day of September, 2020.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

amendment (“After an appeal has been docketed and while it remains pending, the district court
cannot grant a Rule 60(b) motion without a remand.”); id. (“This clear procedure is helpful
whenever relief is sought from an order that the court cannot reconsider because the order is the
subject of a pending appeal.”). This rule is not applicable in this context.
2