Box v. Ferrell, et al

Filing 104

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 88 MOTION for Reconsideration re 87 Memorandum & Order, filed by Plaintiff Keith D. Box, 102 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum filed by Plaintiff Keith D. Box, 98 MOTION for Reconsideration re 87 Memorandum & Order, filed by Plaintiff Keith D. Box, 103 PRO SE MOTION Under Imminent Danger filed by Plaintiff Keith D. Box. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 88 , motion for reconsideration and/or n otice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 98 , "motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum" 102 , and "motion under imminent danger" 103 are DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not accept any additional motions or documents from plaintiff for filing in this action. All documents and motions mailed to the Court by plaintiff shall be returned as set forth in this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 5/8/14. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
KEITH BOX,
Plaintiff,
v.
BILL FERRELL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:00CV0014 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This closed matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se motion for reconsideration
(Doc. No. 88), motion for reconsideration and/or notice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals (Doc. No. 98), “motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum” (Doc. 102), and
“motion under imminent danger.” (Doc. No. 103)
Plaintiff filed this pro se action on February 3, 2000 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
alleged that he was arrested without a warrant, was not given a prompt probable cause hearing
following his arrest, and that defendants conspired to hold him in jail without an arrest warrant, all
in violation of his constitutional rights. On September 28, 2001, the court granted summary
judgment in favor of defendants. (Doc. No. 55). On April 18, 2013, over eleven years after the
court entered its Judgment, plaintiff filed a motion for Rule 60 relief. The Court denied the motion
as time barred on January 31, 2014. (Doc. No. 87)
The Court notes that at the same time Plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration, he also
filed a notice of appeal of the denial of his Rule 60 motion. (Doc. No. 89) Upon the filing of the
notice of appeal, this Court lost jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s motions. See Griggs v.
Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (holding that “filing of a notice of appeal is

an event of jurisdictional significance – it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests
the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”). As such, the
Court will not accept any additional filings from plaintiff in this matter.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [88], motion for
reconsideration and/or notice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals [98], “motion for
writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum” [102], and “motion under imminent danger” [103] are
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not accept any additional motions or
documents from plaintiff for filing in this action. All documents and motions mailed to the Court
by plaintiff shall be returned as set forth in this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 8th day of May, 2014.

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2