Dipofi v. Eichenlaub, No. 2:2008cv10635 - Document 18 (E.D. Mich. 2008)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER denying 14 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge Paul D Borman. (DGoo)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION PASQUALE DIPOFI, Petitioner, Civil No. 2:08-10635 HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE v. C. EICHENLAUB, Respondent, ________________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT On July 14, 2008, this Court denied petitioner s application for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241. DiPofi v. Eichenlaub, 2008 WL 2745143 (E.D.Mich. July 14, 2008). On August 4, 2008, petitioner filed a motion to amend judgment with the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). While this motion was pending, petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on September 2, 2008. [Docket No: 16]. For the reasons stated below, the motion to amend judgment is DENIED. It is well settled that the filing of a notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction over the merits of the appeal to the appellate court. Workman v. Tate, 958 F. 2d 164, 167 (6th Cir. 1992). Because petitioner has filed a notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction to amend its original opinion and order to consider the merits of petitioner s case. Id. at 167-68. In light of the fact that a notice of appeal has been filed, this Court likewise does not have the authority to re-open petitioner s habeas case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. See Jones v. Kolb, 83 Fed. Appx. 779, 781 (6th Cir. 2003); See also Raum v. Norwood, 93 Fed. Appx. 693, 695 (6th Cir. 2004)(Plaintiffs deprived district court of jurisdiction over their motion for reconsideration by filing notice of 1 appeal before district court had chance to make decision on motion to reconsider). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner s Motion to Amend Judgment Under Rule 59(e) [Docket No: 14, filed August 4, 2008] is DENIED. SO ORDERED. s/Paul D. Borman PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: September 11, 2008 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on September 11, 2008. s/Denise Goodine Case Manager 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.
