Merritt v. Wipro Limited

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee partially dismissed and partially denied as moot Kenneth Merritt’s motion for reconsideration. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the dismissal order because Merritt had appealed it, and that reconsideration of the denial of in forma pauperis status on appeal was moot because the proper vehicle was a renewed application in the Sixth Circuit, where Merritt had filed one.

Holdings

1. A notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over the order being appealed and the aspects of the case involved in the appeal; therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider reconsideration of its order dismissing Plaintiff's claims with prejudice.
2. After a district court denies leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, the proper procedure is to pay the appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the court of appeals within 30 days; a motion in the district court seeking reconsideration of the denial is procedurally improper.
3. The request to reconsider the district court's denial of in forma pauperis status on appeal was moot because the procedurally proper avenue was pending in the Sixth Circuit and subsequent proceedings had independently addressed the merits of Plaintiff's renewed application.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction to reconsider its order dismissing Plaintiff's claims with prejudice while that order was pending on appeal.
2. Whether Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the denial of in forma pauperis status on appeal was procedurally proper in the district court.
3. Whether the request for reconsideration of the in forma pauperis order was moot because Plaintiff could seek relief through a renewed application in the Sixth Circuit and had already received a merits decision on a renewed district-court application.

Disposition

dismissed