David Stebbins v. Rita Stebbins, No. 13-2687 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case. Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion remains pending in the district court, and this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. [ November 08, 2013
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2687 ___________________________ David Anthony Stebbins lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Rita F. Stebbins and David D. Stebbins lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison ____________ Submitted: November 6, 2013 Filed: November 12, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Petitioner David A. Stebbins appeals from the judgment of the District Court1 dismissing his pro se action. Upon review of the record, we conclude that we lack 1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. See Dieser v. Cont l Cas. Co., 440 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that jurisdictional issues will be raised sua sponte ). Following the dismissal of his complaint, Stebbins filed what was in effect a timely motion for postjudgment relief under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989) ( [A] postjudgment motion will be considered a Rule 59(e) motion where it involves reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a decision on the merits. (citation to quoted case omitted)). That motion remains pending, and until the District Court rules on it, Stebbins s notice of appeal will lie dormant. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (noting that if a party timely files a Rule 59 motion for a new trial or to alter or amend the judgment, the time to file the appeal runs from the entry of the order disposing of such motion); United States v. Duke, 50 F.3d 571, 575 (8th Cir.); cert. denied, 516 U.S. 885 (1995). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
