Guerrero v. Weeks

Filing 78

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 1/2/2014. (rban, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

ESPERANZA GUERRERO,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
AMY T. WEEKS,
Defendant.

1:13cv837(JCC/JFA)

M E M O R A N D U M

O P I N I O N

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Esperanza
Guerrero’s (“Plaintiff” or “Guerrero”) post-judgment motions.
There are five pending motions in this case.
44, 59.]

[Dkts. 34, 39, 42,

For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny

these motions.
I.

Background

The facts underlying this case are fully set forth in
the Court’s Memorandum Opinion dated September 16, 2013, [Dkt.
15], familiarity with which is presumed.

In brief, Plaintiff

alleges that Defendant fabricated a truancy summons served on
November 24, 2007.

(Compl. ¶ 28.)

On September 16, 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum
Opinion and Order dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint.

[Dkts. 15-16.]

On September 26, 2013, Plaintiff
1

filed a Motion to Recuse the Judge and Request for Reassignment.
[Dkt. 17.]

On October 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed her Motion to

Review Order for Reconsideration.

[Dkt. 19.]

On October 11,

2013, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal as to the Court’s
dismissal of her Amended Complaint with prejudice.

[Dkt. 23.]

On November 5, 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum
Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for recusal.
[Dkts. 30-31.]

On November 15, 2013, the Court issued a

Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration.

[Dkts. 48-49.]

On November 14, 2013,

Plaintiff filed her Motion to Admit Evidence and accompanying
memorandum.

[Dkts. 34-35.]

On November 14, 2013, Plaintiff

also filed her Motion for Leave to File Notice of Constitutional
Question and accompanying memorandum, [Dkts. 39-40], her Motion
for an Extension of Time, for Review of Reconsideration, [Dkt.
42], her second Motion for Leave to File Notice of
Constitutional Question and accompanying memorandum, [Dkts. 4445].

On November 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed her Motion to be

Heard and accompanying memorandum.

[Dkts. 59-60.]

Defendant filed her response to Plaintiff’s Motions
for Leave to File Notice of Constitutional Question on November
25, 2013.

[Dkt. 65.]

Defendant also filed her response to

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Hearing and Motion for Extension on
November 25, 2013.

[Dkt. 66.]

On that date, Defendant also
2

filed a response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Admit Evidence.

[Dkt.

67.]
II.

Analysis

As a general rule, “the filing of a timely and
sufficient notice of appeal immediately transfers jurisdiction
of all matters relating to the appeal from the district court to
the court of appeals.”

Grand Jury Proceedings Under Seal v.

U.S., 947 F.2d 1188, 1190 (4th Cir. 1991).

There is an

exception for matters in aid of the appeal.
filed a notice of appeal on October 11, 2013.

Id.

Plaintiff

[Dkt. 23.]

Following the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion on
November 15, 2013, [Dkts. 48-49], the Notice of Appeal became
effective.

See Fed. R. App. Pro. 4(a)(4)(B)(i).
The motions currently before the Court are as follows:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Admit Evidence, [Dkt. 34]; (2)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Notice of Constitutional
Question, [Dkt. 39]; (3) Motion for Extension of Time, for
Review of Reconsideration, [Dkt. 42]; (4) Motion for Leave to
File Notice of Constitutional Question, [Dkt. 44]; (5) Motion to
be Heard, [Dkt. 59].
Plaintiff’s motions are an improper attempt to
relitigate claims that have already been dismissed.

This case

is now on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit; “there is nothing more for the undersigned to do
3

in the case.”

Mathis v. Goldberg, Civil Action No. DKC 12-1777,

2013 WL 4236401 at *1 (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2013).

Further

consideration of Plaintiff’s arguments will not aid the appeal.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions are moot and “will be considered,
if at all, in the event that the case should be remanded or the
appellate court so directs.”

Id.

III. Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, this Court will deny
Plaintiff’s Motions.
An appropriate order will issue.

January 2, 2014
Alexandria, Virginia

/s/
James C. Cacheris
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

4