Campos, Efrain et al v. Dittman, Michael et al

Filing 65

ORDER that plaintiff Juan Nieto's motion for reconsideration or an extension, Dkt. 64 , is DENIED. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 5/21/2018. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

EFRAIN CAMPOS, JUAN NIETO, and
STANLEY NEWAGO,
Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

MICHAEL DITTMAN,
LINDA ALSUM O’DONOVAN,
DAVID KURKOWSKI, LUCAS M. WEBER,
KEVIN W. PITZEN, BRAD HOMRE, and
CINDY O’DONNELL,

Case No. 17-cv-545-jdp
Appeal No. 18-1551

Defendants.
Judgment was entered in this case on February 6, 2018, after I denied plaintiffs leave
to proceed on their claims against defendants and dismissed their complaint with prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dkt. 47 and Dkt. 48. On March 12,
plaintiff Juan Nieto filed a notice of appeal. Dkt. 56. But because he never paid the $505 filing
fee for the appeal nor filed a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed his appeal on May 9, 2018. See Dkt.
62. Now Nieto has filed a letter indicating that on April 10, 2018, he sent a motion for an
extension of the deadline for paying the filing fee or moving for leave to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis. Dkt. 64. He asks that I reconsider the decision to dismiss his appeal.
The court never received Nieto’s motion for an extension, and regardless, I cannot
reconsider the decision to dismiss his appeal or retroactively extend the deadline because this
court does not have jurisdiction over Nieto’s appeal. See United States v. Queen, 847 F.2d 346,
350 (7th Cir. 1988) (“Once an appeal has been taken, the general rule is that a district court—

with limited exceptions—is powerless to take any adjudicatory action related to the appeal.”).
It was the court of appeals, not this court, that dismissed the appeal. If Nieto believes that his
appeal should not have been dismissed, he should file a motion in the court of appeals. See Fed.
R. App. P. 26(b).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Juan Nieto’s motion for reconsideration or an extension,
Dkt. 64, is DENIED.
Entered May 21, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2