Watts, David v. Luell, Rick et al

Filing 160

ORDER denying plaintiff's 159 motion for relief from the final judgment. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 1/30/2015. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DAVID W. WATTS,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

10-cv-550-wmc

DAN WESTFIELD and RICK RAEMISCH,
Defendants.

On July 11, 2014, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and
dismissed the prisoner civil rights case filed by plaintiff David W. Watts. Watts has filed an
appeal from that decision. Watts has also filed a motion for relief from the final judgment
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), alleging that defendants "hid" unspecified evidence of their guilt
in this matter. Because Watts' appeal remains pending in the Seventh Circuit, his motion will
be denied for reasons set forth briefly below.
In most cases, the filing a notice of appeal shifts jurisdiction from the district court to
the court of appeals.

Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)

(emphasizing that "a federal district court and a federal court of appeals should not attempt to
assert jurisdiction over a case simultaneously); United States v. Quintero, 572 F.3d 351, 353
(7th Cir. ·2009). This means that, once a notice of appeal is filed, further proceedings in the
district court cannot take place without leave of the court of appeals. See Henry v. Fanner City
State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1240 (7th Cir. 1986) (citing Asher v. Harrington, 461 F.2d 890,

895 (7th Cir. 1972)).

I

Where a district court lacks authority to grant relief because of an appeal that has been
docketed and is pending, the reviewing court has three options. The court may: "( 1) defer
considering the motion; (2) deny the motion; or (3) state either 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). In this case, the court elects to deny the motion because it is
conclusory and does not allege specific facts showing that Watts is entitled to relief under
Rule 60(b).

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for relief from the final judgment filed by plaintiff
David W. Watts (dkt. # 159) is DENIED.
Entered this 30th day of January, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

Isl
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

2