Rabb v. Figueroa

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issues an indicative ruling denying Plaintiff Damen D. Rabb’s motions for reconsideration of terminating sanctions and dismissal with prejudice in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Eighth Amendment action. The court also denies Plaintiff’s application for a certificate of appealability, explaining that such a certificate is not required for a § 1983 civil action.

Holdings

1. The Court could issue an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 because the notice of appeal might have divested the district court of jurisdiction over the appealed aspects of the case.
2. Reconsideration was not warranted because Plaintiff showed neither newly discovered evidence, clear error, nor an intervening change in controlling law; mere disagreement with the sanctions order was insufficient.
3. A certificate of appealability was not required because the action was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than as a habeas corpus proceeding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff established grounds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to reconsider the judgment imposing terminating sanctions and dismissing the action with prejudice.
2. Whether the Court could issue an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 while Plaintiff's notice of appeal was pending.
3. Whether a certificate of appealability is required or available in a civil-rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Disposition

other