Dustin Sinyard v. Kevin McMahill, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00055
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 DUSTIN SINYARD, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00055-APG-DJA

4 Plaintiff Order Issuing an Indicative Ruling on Motion for Relief from Final Judgment 5 v. [ECF No. 15] 6 KEVIN MCMAHILL, et al.,

7 Defendants

9 I. DISCUSSION 10 On September 8, 2025, I dismissed pro se plaintiff Dustin Sinyard’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 11 complaint its entirety, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim under Heck v. Humphrey, 12 512 U.S. 477 (1994). ECF No. 9 at 6. The Clerk of the Court closed the case and entered 13 judgment. ECF No. 11. On September 23, 2025, Sinyard filed a timely notice of appeal. ECF 14 No. 12. On October 14, 2025, Sinyard filed a motion for relief from final judgment under 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 60. ECF No. 15. 16 After reviewing Sinyard’s motion which clarified some of the allegations in his 17 complaint, I am inclined to grant his motion, reopen this case, and give him leave to amend to 18 file a first amended complaint.1 However, “the filing of a notice of appeal generally divests the 19 district court of jurisdiction over the matters appealed.” Pro Sales, Inc. v. Texaco, U.S.A., Div. of 20 Texaco, Inc., 792 F.2d 1394, 1396 (9th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, I lack jurisdiction to grant 21

22 1 After reviewing Sinyard’s motion and complaint, it appears that Sinyard may be trying to raise Fourth Amendment claims for both unlawful arrest and excessive force. Because Sinyard’s 23 initial complaint was not clear on this matter, I would grant him leave to amend to provide more factual details. 1}| Sinyard’s motion because of his pending appeal. But FRCP 62.1 provides that, “[i]f a timely 2|| motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been 3}| docketed and is pending, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion; (2) deny the motion; or (3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a). 6 Therefore, under FRCP 62.1(a), I give an indicative ruling that I would grant Sinyard’s 7|| motion for relief from final judgment (ECF No. 15), reopen this case, and grant Sinyard leave to 8|| amend if the Ninth Circuit remands this case for that purpose. II. CONCLUSION 10 I THEREFORE ORDER that the Clerk of the Court transmit a copy of this order to the Ninth Circuit’s Clerk of the Court in connection with Sinyard’s pending appeal (case no. 25- 12||6062 (ECF No. 14)). 13 I await further instruction from the Ninth Circuit on how to proceed. 14 15 Dated: November 7, 2025 16 Andrew P. Gordon 17 Chief United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23