DECKER v. GARLAND

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION ROBERT K. DECKER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:21-cv-00253-JPH-MJD ) FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT ORDER Plaintiff Robert K. Decker has filed a post-judgment motion for court order asking the Court to open a new case for his claim against the United States for failing to provide federal inmates adequate access to state law resources, and to stay the case pending the outcome of his appeal. He believes this will preserve his rights. Dkt. 52. Mr. Decker initially sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for injunctive relief for failing to provide him periodic reviews of his placement in the Communications Management Unit (CMU) in violation of his due process rights and for establishing the CMU in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). He also sued the CMU's Legal Department Head Katherine Siereveld for refusing to allow certain court documents to be notarized and/or mailed to a court, Dkt. 1 at 9, but this claim was dismissed. Mr. Decker later sought leave to amend his complaint to add a claim for damages against the United States for failing to provide federal inmates adequate access to state law resources. Dkt. 21. The Court denied the motion because the new claim was unrelated to the claims in Mr. Decker's original complaint and would therefore be misjoined. Dkt. 30. However, the Court notified Mr. Decker that he could pursue the claim by filing a new lawsuit. Id. When Mr. Decker's claims for injunctive relief were mooted by his release from the CMU, he moved to substitute the claim based on the failure to provide access to state law resources. Dkt. 37.The Court denied his motion and dismissed this action. Dkt. 41. Mr. Decker appealed. Dkt. 43. Mr. Decker's appeal remains pending in the Seventh Circuit.

"[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. United States, 62 F.3d 192, 193 (7th Cir. 1995) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). Mr. Decker has provided no legal support in opposition to this jurisdictional principle. Mr. Decker's issue on appeal is whether this Court erred when it denied his motion to substitute a claim against the United States for failing to provide federal inmates adequate access to state law resources for his mooted injunctive relief claims. Because that claim is the focus of his appeal, this Court does not have jurisdiction to grant his request to open and stay a new case that

he can later use to pursue it if his appeal in this case is denied. For these reasons, Mr. Decker's motion for court order, dkt. [52], is denied. Nothing in this Order prevents Mr. Decker from initiating a new action against the United States for failing to provide federal inmates adequate access to state law resources. If he chooses to do so, he will be responsible for the filing fee and the complaint will be subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). SO ORDERED. Date: 11/28/2022

Sjamu Patrick awlove James Patrick Hanlon ge United States District Judge Distribution: Southern District of Indiana ROBERT K. DECKER 51719-074 TERRE HAUTE - FCI TERRE HAUTE FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. BOX 33 TERRE HAUTE, IN 47808

Julian Clifford Wierenga UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (Indianapolis) julian.wierenga@usdoj.gov