Sankona Graham v. James Dzurenda, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denies Sankona Graham’s motion to reconsider the dismissal of his civil rights action. The court holds that it retains jurisdiction to resolve the timely reconsideration motion despite the filing of a notice of appeal and concludes that Graham has not shown grounds for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1).

Holdings

1. The district court retained jurisdiction to decide and deny Graham's timely reconsideration motion because a timely motion covered by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) tolls the time for appeal, and a notice of appeal filed before disposition of that motion does not become effective until the motion is resolved.
2. Graham was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1) because he did not demonstrate a qualifying mistake that undermined the dismissal; he still had not paid the filing fee or applied to proceed in forma pauperis.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court retained jurisdiction to decide Graham's reconsideration motion after he filed a notice of appeal.
2. Whether Graham was entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) from the dismissal and judgment based on an alleged mistake concerning the filing-fee requirement and inmate mediation.

Disposition

denied