Cornelius Walker v. Thomas Dart, et al
| CORNELIUS WALKER |
| THOMAS J. DART, Sheriff of Cook County and COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS |
| 25-1191 |
| February 7, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 13, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
ORDER re: Status report of 03/12/2025. IT IS ORDERED that appellant shall file a further status report within 7 days of a ruling on the remainder of his motion for reconsideration, or on or shortly before May 13, 2025, if no ruling has yet issued. In that status report, appellant should explain his position whether this appeal remains necessary in light of the district courts vacatur of its January 21, 2025, judgment. A motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure will satisfy this requirement. JXK [6] [7440144] [25-1191] (JMB) [Entered: 03/13/2025 10:00 AM]
|
| Filing 5 Filed status report by Appellant Cornelius Walker. [5] [7440009] [25-1191] (Morrissey, Patrick) [Entered: 03/12/2025 01:45 PM] |
|
Filing 4
ORDER: A notice of appeal filed before the district court issues its ruling on a timely motion under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is ineffective until the order disposing of the motion is entered on the district courts civil docket. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). In the present case, Cornelius Walker filed a Rule 59 motion on January 24, 2025, within 28 days of entry of judgment on January 21, 2025. As Walker recognizes, his motion renders this appeal premature, because the district court has not yet disposed of the motion and entered its order on the civil docket. Florian v. Sequa Corp. , 294 F.3d 828, 829 (7th Cir. 2002). In response to the Rule 59 motion, the district court has entered an indicative ruling under Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, suggesting both that the motion raised a substantial question (which would ordinarily prompt this court to remand while retaining jurisdiction) and that it was inclined to vacate its judgment (which would ordinarily prompt this court to remand while relinquishing jurisdiction). See Boyko v. Anderson , 185 F.3d 672, 675 (7th Cir. 1999) (discussing local predecessor to Rule 62.1). This ambiguity is not a problem here because we have no jurisdiction to retain or relinquish and an indicative ruling was therefore unnecessary. Such an order is required only when a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a). The district court did not lack any authority to grant the motion currently before it. See Gelin v. Baltimore Cnty. , 122 F.4th 531, 539 (4th Cir. 2024) (collecting cases). Again, per Rule 4(a)(4), the appeal is not effectiveand thus not pending in a real senseuntil the Rule 59 motion is disposed of. It is therefore the district court, not this court, that has the exclusive authority to act. That is the holding of Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co. , 459 U.S. 56, 61 (1982), though the case is more often cited for the inverse proposition and was decided before the 1993 amendments allowed premature appeals to ripen later. Accordingly, this court will take no action on the indicative ruling. The district court is free to conduct whatever process it deems necessary to consider fully the arguments before it up to and including vacating its judgment, all without requesting or awaiting this courts permission. If the judgment is vacated, then Walker may withdraw this appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) or we may then dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. If the district court stands by its judgment, then this appeal will be waiting for Walker, and we will resolve it along with any amendment he may file in response to the district courts disposition of his motion. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). Proceedings in this appeal are SUSPENDED pending disposition of the Rule 59 motion. But so that this court may keep aware of what is transpiring in the district court, this court will order periodic status reports. Walker shall file the first of these status reports within seven days of a ruling on the motion for reconsideration, or on or shortly before March 12, 2025, if no order has yet issued. (See order for further details) JXK [4]. [4] [7434382] [25-1191] (PS) [Entered: 02/12/2025 03:24 PM]
|
| Filing 3 Docketing Statement filed by Appellant Cornelius Walker. Prior or Related proceedings: Yes. Case No. 25-8003 [3] [7433718] [25-1191] (Morrissey, Patrick) [Entered: 02/10/2025 10:54 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed District Court order dated 02/06/2025. This court entered final judgment after considering Mr. Walker's standing to challenge whether a ramp at the Cook County Jail violates the ADA. [250]. Plaintiff has filed a motion to reconsider and a motion to supplement the record on the issue of standing [251][255]. These motions raise a substantial issue under FRAP 12(a). Moreover, Walker's second amended complaint [34] alleged the shower at the Cook County Jail violated the ADA and that he suffered an injury as a result. That issue is pending. The court improperly entered final judgment. The Court would vacate the final judgment on that basis if permitted under FRAP 12(a). Forwarded to JXK. [2] [7433604] [25-1191] (PS) [Entered: 02/07/2025 03:44 PM] |
| Filing 1 State prisoner's civil rights case docketed. Fee Paid. Docketing Statement due for Appellant Cornelius Walker by 02/14/2025. Transcript information sheet due by 02/21/2025. Appellant's brief due on or before 03/19/2025 for Cornelius Walker. [1] [7433598] [25-1191] (PS) [Entered: 02/07/2025 03:37 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
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.
