United States of America v. 2035 Inc. et al

Filing 161

ORDER denying 160 Motion. Signed by Chief Judge Jeffrey L. Viken on 3/30/16. (SB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CIV. 14-5075-JLV
ORDER

2035 INC., a corporation, and
ROBERT L. LYTLE, an individual,
d/b/a 2035 PMA and QLASERS PMA,
Defendants.
On October 13, 2015, the court entered an amended permanent
injunction. (Docket 139). On December 3, 2015, Defendant Robert L. Lytle
filed a notice of appeal. (Docket 147). On January 12, 2016, during the
pendency of the appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit, Mr. Lytle filed an amended petition for clarifications, constructive
notice and declarations. (Docket 160). “The 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.” Liddell by Liddell v. Board of Education of City
of St. Louis, 73 F.3d 819, 822 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing Griggs v. Provident
Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). “Once the notice of appeal
was filed, the district court had no jurisdiction to reconsider its prior
decision.” Id. at 823. “[W]hile an appeal is pending, the district court may

not reexamine or supplement the order being appealed.” State ex rel. Nixon
v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe, 164 F.3d 1102, 1106 (8th Cir. 1999).
“So complete is the transfer of jurisdiction that any orders of the district
court touching upon the substance of the matter on appeal are considered
null and void if entered subsequently to the filing of the notice of appeal.”
Knutson v. AG Processing, Inc., 302 F. Supp. 2d 1023, 1030 (N.D. Iowa 2004)
(citing 16A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 3949.1 (3d ed. 1999)). However, notwithstanding the general
rule, “the district court has jurisdiction to act to enforce its judgment so long
as the judgment has not been stayed or superseded.” Id. at 1032 (citation
and other references omitted).
Mr. Lytle’s amended petition asks the court to answer questions and
address issues concerning its authority to enter the amended permanent
injunction. (Docket 160). The court is without jurisdiction to resolve Mr.
Lytle’s amended petition because his appeal addresses the very essence of the
court’s authority to enter the amended permanent injunction.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Lytle’s amended petition (Docket 160) is denied for
lack of jurisdiction.
Dated March 30, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Viken
JEFFREY L. VIKEN
CHIEF JUDGE

2