Tuduj v. Newbold
3:15-cv-01294
S.D. Ill.Jun 18, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Tom Tuduj, an Illinois inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to severe dental needs.
- Court appointed counsel; Tuduj later moved to proceed pro se, which Magistrate Judge Sison denied as the case was complex and required counsel.
- District Judge granted summary judgment for Defendants and entered final judgment on March 20, 2019.
- Tuduj timely filed motions construed as Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend the judgment and a notice of appeal to the Seventh Circuit.
- Tuduj also appealed the magistrate judge’s denial of self-representation; the notice of appeal raised jurisdictional questions because appeals generally divest the district court of jurisdiction.
- The Court resolved that the appeal of the magistrate judge’s order was outside the Rule 4(a)(4) exception and thus the district court lacked jurisdiction to address that appeal, but the Rule 59(e) motions remained within the district court’s jurisdiction; the Court struck Tuduj’s motion to strike and denied the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court retains jurisdiction to consider appeal of magistrate judge’s denial of self-representation after notice of appeal | Tuduj appealed the denial and sought review | Defendants implicitly argued normal appellate process applies; court must determine whether appeal is premature or suspends district court | Court held it lacked jurisdiction to address the appeal of the magistrate judge’s order because it is not covered by App. R. 4(a)(4) |
| Whether the district court retains jurisdiction to decide timely Rule 59(e) motions after a notice of appeal | Tuduj filed Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend judgment | Defendants relied on the notice of appeal to divest district court of jurisdiction | Court held Rule 4(a)(4) suspends the notice of appeal as to timely post-judgment motions; district court retained jurisdiction over Rule 59(e) motions |
| Whether Tuduj’s post-judgment filings should be struck given his appeal | Tuduj moved to strike the Rule 59(e) motions after filing notice of appeal | Defendants argued the Rule 59(e) motions were properly pending and the court could decide them | Court granted Tuduj’s motion to strike (Doc. 104) and struck the Rule 59(e) motions (Docs. 93 & 94) as appropriate in light of jurisdictional posture |
| Proper characterization of Tuduj’s motions filed within 28 days of judgment | Tuduj labeled motions as reconsider and alter/amend; argued they warranted review | Defendants treated them as Rule 59(e) motions | Court treated the motions as Rule 59(e) motions under Borrero and resolved jurisdiction accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Woodard, 744 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2014) (general rule that an appeal suspends the district court's power to proceed further)
- Borrero v. City of Chicago, 456 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2006) (motions filed within 28 days of judgment are deemed Rule 59(e) motions even if labeled otherwise)
- Katerinos v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 368 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2004) (notice of appeal does not divest district court of jurisdiction to consider timely Rule 59(e) motions)