Box v. Steele et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of this action is DENIED. [Doc. 61] Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 5/2/2014. (NCL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
TROY STEELE, et al.,
No. 4:13-CV-1052 CAS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the dismissal of this action, without
prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.41(b). Alternatively, plaintiff’s case was dismissed as a result
of his failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, 10 and 20, in the filing of his sixth amended
Plaintiff, an inmate at Jefferson City Correctional Center (“JCCC”), brought the instant
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and in a plethora of filings before this Court, he showed a
complete disregard for this Court’s specific instructions, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures and
this Court’s Local Rules. After allowing plaintiff some leeway, due to his pro se status, the Court
finally dismissed plaintiff’s sixth amended complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), or
alternatively, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, 10 and 20.
In his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his action, plaintiff merely repeats his
allegations of defendants’ unlawful behavior. However, he fails to address his inability to abide by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s specific instructions and the Court’s Local
Rules. As such, there are no grounds in plaintiff’s motion upon which the Court may reconsider
the dismissal of plaintiff’s sixth amended complaint.
Regardless, the Court notes that at the same time plaintiff filed his motion for
reconsideration, he also filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of this action. See Doc. 62. Upon
the filing of the notice of appeal, this Court lost jurisdiction to grant plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration. 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.”).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of
this action is DENIED. [Doc. 61]
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 2nd day of May, 2014.
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?