Opinion and Order Denying Rule 60(b) Motion — Changizi v. HHS

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division · No. 2:22-cv-01776-EAS-CMV · Doc. 52 · 2022-10-18 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
 
 
  
MARK CHANGIZI, et al.,  
 
 
 
 
       Case No. 2:22-cv-1776 
 
 
Plaintiffs, 
 
 
       JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. 
 
 
 
 
 
                   Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 
 
v.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
        
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al. 
 
 
 
Defendants.  
 
OPINION AND ORDER 
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief From Judgement Under 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave File Supplement to their 
Rule 60(b) Motion.  (ECF Nos. 42, 50.) These motions are fully at issue. (ECF Nos. 48, 49, 51.) 
Plaintiffs, however, have also filed two notices of appeal (ECF Nos. 43, 47) and this case is 
currently on the active docket of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Case 
No. 22-3573.   
In this circuit, a “notice of appeal operates to transfer jurisdiction of the case to the court 
of appeals, and the district court is thereafter without jurisdiction to grant a motion under Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 60(b).”  Pickens v. Howes, 549 F.3d 377, 383 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing First Nat. Bank of 
Salem, Ohio v. Hirsch, 535 F.2d 343 (6th Cir. 1976)). “Once divested of jurisdiction, the district 
court may [only] ‘aid the appellate process’ but may not independently grant a Rule 60(b) 
motion.”  Id. The only way for this Court to determine the merits of Plaintiffs’ motions would be 
for it to issue a decision “indicat[ing] that it would grant the motion [and] [the] appellant should 
then make a motion in [the Sixth Circuit] for a remand of the case so that the district court can 
Case: 2:22-cv-01776-EAS-CMV Doc #: 52 Filed: 10/18/22 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: 733

2 
 
grant relief.”  Id.  
Here, the Court can neither aid in the appellate process nor does it believe the Plaintiffs’ 
motions would be granted if it were to consider them.  Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to 
consider Plaintiffs’ motions and DENIES them. (ECF Nos. 42, 50.)  The Clerk is DIRECTED 
to remove these pending motions from the Court’s active docket so that the case may be 
considered on appeal. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 
 
10/18/2022 
 
 
 
 
s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 
 
 
DATE  
 
 
 
 
EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case: 2:22-cv-01776-EAS-CMV Doc #: 52 Filed: 10/18/22 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: 734

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ohsd.267163.52.0.pdf

Size

179,720 bytes

SHA-256

45cbb8c57dfd9597f9f61bc91410ae9cab849ecfea7c6d01fb86a916f41d7043

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ohsd.267163.52.0.pdf

Original

archive.org