J.H. v. Ohio Dept of Job and Family Services

S.D. Ohio

J.H. v. Ohio Dept of Job and Family Services

DecidedNovember 16, 2022

Docket2:21-cv-00206

StatusUnknown

This text of J.H. v. Ohio Dept of Job and Family Services (J.H. v. Ohio Dept of Job and Family Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

J.H. v. Ohio Dept of Job and Family Services, (S.D. Ohio 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION J.H., Plaintiff, Case No. 2:21-cv-206 Vv. Judge Michael H. Watson Ohio Department of Job and Magistrate Judge Jolson Family Services, et al., Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER J.H. (“Plaintiff’) sued the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and several other entities (collectively “Defendants”). Second Amend. Compl., ECF No. 48. Plaintiffs claims arose out of a hearing on the termination of Plaintiff's food assistance and Medicaid benefits. /d. Plaintiff asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and a constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. /d. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. ECF No. 52. The Court granted the motion because it concluded all of Plaintiffs claims were barred by the statute of limitations. ECF No. 66. Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal, ECF No. 68, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution. ECF No. 73. In September 2022, Plaintiff moved in this Court for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. ECF No. 74. Nearly two months later,

the Sixth Circuit reinstated Plaintiffs appeal. ECF No. 77. The Court now turns to Plaintiffs Rule 60 motion. I. A timely notice of appeal generally divests the district court of jurisdiction unless and until the case is remanded by the Court of Appeals. See, e.g., Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) superseded by rule on other grounds (“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and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.” (citing cases)). There is conflicting Sixth Circuit caselaw as to whether, as an exception to this rule, a district court may consider motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) during the pendency of an appeal.’ On the one hand, the Sixth Circuit has instructed that it “nas carved out an exception to [the general rule] that allows a District Court to entertain a motion for relief from judgment after an appeal has been filed if it so chooses.” Dunham v. United States, 486 F.3d 931, 935 (6th Cir. 2007). On the other, it has also held that when a Rule 60(b) motion is filed after a notice of appeal, “the district court [has] no jurisdiction to entertain the motion.” United States v. Demjanjuk, 128 F. App’x 496, 497 (6th Cir. 2005);

1 Because a reinstatement order relates “back to the date of the prior judgment,” Plaintiff filed his Rule 60(b) in what is now the pendency of the appeal. Jackson v. Tennessee Val. Auth., 595 F.2d 1120, 1121 (6th Cir. 1979). Case No. 2:21-cv-206 Page 2 of 4

see also Adkins v. Jeffreys, 327 F. App’x 537, 539 (6th Cir. 2009) (“At the time of the filing of [the plaintiffs] Rule 60(b) motion, he already had an appeal pending in this court which deprived the district court of jurisdiction to rule on the motion. ...”). Here, the Court need not decide which of these lines of cases is correct. Even those cases holding that the Court would have jurisdiction explain that the “decision of whether to hear this type of post-judgment motion while an appeal is pending is within the District Court’s discretion, and there is no error where the District Court decides to let the appeal run its course.” Dunham, 486 F.3d at 935. In Plaintiffs motion, he challenges, inter alia, the validity of the Court's statute-of-limitations conclusions. See, e.g., Mot. 13-24, ECF No. 74. These challenges are better suited to an appeal than a Rule 60(b) motion. Cf. Hall v. Stine Seed Co., No. 218CV02265JTFTMP, 2019 WL 12762521, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 11, 2019) (ruling on a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment and explaining then when “the movant is attempting to obtain a complete reversal of the court’s judgment by offering essentially the same arguments presented on the original motion, the proper vehicle for relief is an appeal” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Indeed, it appears that Plaintiff may argue on appeal at least some of the same issues he presents in the Rule 60(b) motion. Compare Mot., ECF No. 74 with Petition, ECF No. 15, Appellate Case No. 21-4016. Under these circumstances, the Court will “let the appeal run its course.” Dunham, 486. F. 3d at 935. Case No. 2:21-cv-206 Page 3 of 4

Hl. For these reasons, Plaintiffs motion is DENIED. The Clerk shall terminate ECF No. 74. IT IS SO ORDERED. l , A Lh | or MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:21-cv-206 Page 4 of 4

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION J.H., Plaintiff, Case No. 2:21-cv-206 Vv. Judge Michael H. Watson Ohio Department of Job and Magistrate Judge Jolson Family Services, et al., Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER J.H. (“Plaintiff’) sued the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and several other entities (collectively “Defendants”). Second Amend. Compl., ECF No. 48. Plaintiffs claims arose out of a hearing on the termination of Plaintiff's food assistance and Medicaid benefits. /d. Plaintiff asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and a constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. /d. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. ECF No. 52. The Court granted the motion because it concluded all of Plaintiffs claims were barred by the statute of limitations. ECF No. 66. Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal, ECF No. 68, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution. ECF No. 73. In September 2022, Plaintiff moved in this Court for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. ECF No. 74. Nearly two months later,

the Sixth Circuit reinstated Plaintiffs appeal. ECF No. 77. The Court now turns to Plaintiffs Rule 60 motion. I. A timely notice of appeal generally divests the district court of jurisdiction unless and until the case is remanded by the Court of Appeals. See, e.g., Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) superseded by rule on other grounds (“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.” (citing cases)). There is conflicting Sixth Circuit caselaw as to whether, as an exception to this rule, a district court may consider motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) during the pendency of an appeal.’ On the one hand, the Sixth Circuit has instructed that it “nas carved out an exception to [the general rule] that allows a District Court to entertain a motion for relief from judgment after an appeal has been filed if it so chooses.” Dunham v. United States, 486 F.3d 931, 935 (6th Cir. 2007). On the other, it has also held that when a Rule 60(b) motion is filed after a notice of appeal, “the district court [has] no jurisdiction to entertain the motion.” United States v. Demjanjuk, 128 F. App’x 496, 497 (6th Cir. 2005);

1 Because a reinstatement order relates “back to the date of the prior judgment,” Plaintiff filed his Rule 60(b) in what is now the pendency of the appeal. Jackson v. Tennessee Val. Auth., 595 F.2d 1120, 1121 (6th Cir. 1979). Case No. 2:21-cv-206 Page 2 of 4

see also Adkins v. Jeffreys, 327 F. App’x 537, 539 (6th Cir. 2009) (“At the time of the filing of [the plaintiffs] Rule 60(b) motion, he already had an appeal pending in this court which deprived the district court of jurisdiction to rule on the motion. ...”). Here, the Court need not decide which of these lines of cases is correct. Even those cases holding that the Court would have jurisdiction explain that the “decision of whether to hear this type of post-judgment motion while an appeal is pending is within the District Court’s discretion, and there is no error where the District Court decides to let the appeal run its course.” Dunham, 486 F.3d at 935. In Plaintiffs motion, he challenges, inter alia, the validity of the Court's statute-of-limitations conclusions. See, e.g., Mot. 13-24, ECF No. 74. These challenges are better suited to an appeal than a Rule 60(b) motion. Cf. Hall v. Stine Seed Co., No. 218CV02265JTFTMP, 2019 WL 12762521, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 11, 2019) (ruling on a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment and explaining then when “the movant is attempting to obtain a complete reversal of the court’s judgment by offering essentially the same arguments presented on the original motion, the proper vehicle for relief is an appeal” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Indeed, it appears that Plaintiff may argue on appeal at least some of the same issues he presents in the Rule 60(b) motion. Compare Mot., ECF No. 74 with Petition, ECF No. 15, Appellate Case No. 21-4016. Under these circumstances, the Court will “let the appeal run its course.” Dunham, 486. F. 3d at 935. Case No. 2:21-cv-206 Page 3 of 4

Hl. For these reasons, Plaintiffs motion is DENIED. The Clerk shall terminate ECF No. 74. IT IS SO ORDERED. l , A Lh | or MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:21-cv-206 Page 4 of 4

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

J.H. v. Ohio Dept of Job and Family Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jh-v-ohio-dept-of-job-and-family-services-ohsd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack