Acosta v. Steven M. Ross

Background

Michael Anthony Acosta filed a rebuttal to the court’s earlier order denying his motion for judicial recusal. Because he asked the court to reconsider that denial, the court treated the filing as a motion for reconsideration.

The opinion states that Acosta had filed two notices of appeal. One challenged the court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. The other challenged the order denying his motion for judicial recusal.

Court’s Reasoning

The court explained that filing a notice of appeal gives the appeals court jurisdiction over the aspects of the case involved in the appeal and removes the district court’s control over those matters. Because Acosta appealed the order denying recusal, the district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction—that is, legal authority—to consider a motion asking it to reconsider that same order.

The court added that, even if it had jurisdiction, it would deny reconsideration because Acosta offered no new evidence and identified no change in controlling law that would justify revisiting the recusal decision.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied reconsideration on the stated alternative basis and held that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Acosta at his address of record.