Bruce Edgar Smith v. South Dakota Board of Pardons and Paroles; Alejandro Reyes

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota denied Bruce Edgar Smith’s Rule 60(b) motion seeking to assert or connect civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to his habeas proceeding. The court held that habeas claims and § 1983 claims are mutually exclusive and that Smith’s notice of appeal deprived the district court of jurisdiction over his motions for joinder, amendment, and in forma pauperis status. The court also denied those motions on the alternative ground that they sought to avoid applicable Prison Litigation Reform Act filing-fee requirements.

Holdings

1. Although a notice of appeal generally divests the district court of jurisdiction over aspects of the case involved in the appeal, the district court may consider and deny a Rule 60(b) motion on its merits while the appeal is pending.
2. Rule 60(b) does not authorize a district court in a habeas proceeding to grant relief from final judgments entered in other actions, and a habeas petition cannot be combined with a § 1983 damages complaint.
3. The filing of Smith's notice of appeal deprived the district court of jurisdiction to consider his motions for joinder, amendment, and leave to proceed in forma pauperis in connection with a proposed civil-rights complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court could consider Smith's Rule 60(b) motion after he filed a notice of appeal.
2. Whether Rule 60(b) permitted Smith to obtain relief in this habeas proceeding from judgments entered in other actions or to assert § 1983 damages claims in the habeas case.
3. Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider Smith's post-appeal motions for joinder, amendment, and leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
4. Whether habeas claims and § 1983 civil-rights claims could be combined in a single proceeding.

Disposition

other