Caldwell v. City of New York
- Ho
- 1:21-cv-06560
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Caldwell v. City of New York, Judge Ho denied Caldwell’s reconsideration motion because his appeal removed the issue from the district court’s control.
Emmett Caldwell’s motion for reconsideration was denied; the defendants retained the judgment previously entered in their favor, and the appeal remained outside the district court’s control.
What happened
In Caldwell v. City of New York, the court considered Emmett Caldwell’s request to reconsider an earlier decision granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which is a decision that the evidence did not require a trial. Caldwell had already appealed that decision.
The court explained that filing the appeal generally gives the appeals court control over the parts of the case involved in the appeal. The district court may make certain clerical corrections, but it may not make substantive changes to the appealed decision or judgment.
Judge Dale E. Ho denied the motion for reconsideration because the district court lacked jurisdiction—legal authority—to modify its earlier decision or the judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion and mail the order to Caldwell, who was representing himself.
The detailed version
- Caldwell v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-06560
- Ho
- Apr. 11, 2024
Background
On February 26, 2024, the court issued an opinion and order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On February 27, 2024, the Clerk of Court entered judgment for the defendants. Caldwell filed a notice of appeal on March 11, 2024, and filed a motion for reconsideration of the summary-judgment decision on March 12, 2024.
Ruling
The court denied the motion for reconsideration. It explained that filing a notice of appeal generally gives the appeals court jurisdiction over the parts of the case involved in the appeal and removes the district court’s control over those same aspects. The district court may make certain clerical corrections while an appeal is pending, but it may not make substantive changes to the appealed decision or judgment. Because Caldwell’s motion sought reconsideration of the summary-judgment decision, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to modify that decision or the judgment entered in the defendants’ favor.
Disposition
Judge Dale E. Ho ordered the Clerk of Court to close the motion at ECF No. 106 and mail the order to Caldwell, whom the order identifies as a self-represented plaintiff.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.