IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
January 7, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
JAMES E. ROLLINS, SR., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
On June 5, 2008, the Court issued an Order (Doc. 655) striking defendant James E. Rollins, Sr.'sMotion for Reconsideration (Doc. 654), because it was filed pro se while Defendant was represented by counsel.*fn1 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration regarded the Court's May 23, 2008 Order (Doc. 653), which struck Defendant's Motion for New Trial, as it was also filed pro se while Defendant was represented by counsel. On June 9, 2008, Defendant again filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 656), of the Court's June 5, 2008 Order (Doc. 655), striking Defendant's first Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 654). However, since filing this most recent Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 656), Defendant has filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 657), regarding both the Court's June 5, 2008 Order (Doc. 655) and its May 23, 2008 Order (Doc. 653).
Because this matter is now on appeal to the Seventh Circuit, the Court has no jurisdiction to consider Defendant's Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 656). "[A] federal district court and a federal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a case simultaneously. The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance-it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Kusay v. U.S., 62 F.3d 192, 193-94 (7th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). Yet, a district court may address ancillary matters while the case is on appeal. Id. at 194.
Here, the Seventh Circuit will address the Court's orders striking both Defendant's Motion for New Trial and first Motion to Reconsider. Thus, the appellate court will either affirm the Court's decision to strike, dismiss the appeal or remand it back to the Court for further proceedings. Either way, there will be no further need for the Court to reconsider its previous orders once the Seventh Circuit has spoken on the matter -- it will either be bound by its decision to affirm/dismiss or else have the opportunity to revisit Defendant's motions on remand.Furthermore, nowhere under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure exists the authority for one to file a "motion for reconsideration" of a previous court ruling, although such procedural vehicle does exist in civil cases. See United States v. Griffin, 84 F.3d 820, 826 n.4 (7th Cir. 1996) ("We are at a loss to understand any basis under federal law or rules of criminal procedure for what is typically described as a "motion to reconsider . . . [t]here is no authority in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for a "motion for reconsideration."). Accordingly, without making a ruling upon the motion because it currently does not possess the jurisdiction to do so, the Court finds Defendant's Second Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 656) to be MOOT in light of Defendant's concurrent appeal of the same order he seeks this Court to reconsider.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DavidRHer|do| Chief Judge United States District Court