Maurice Blocker v. Brandon Watwood, Warden

W.D. Tennessee

Maurice Blocker v. Brandon Watwood, Warden

DecidedDecember 17, 2025

Docket2:22-cv-01270

StatusUnknown

This text of Maurice Blocker v. Brandon Watwood, Warden (Maurice Blocker v. Brandon Watwood, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maurice Blocker v. Brandon Watwood, Warden, (W.D. Tenn. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

MAURICE BLOCKER, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No. 2:22-cv-01270-JTF-atc v. ) ) BRANDON WATWOOD, Warden, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO PROCEED, GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR STATUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK TO MAIL PETITIONER A COPY OF THE DOCKET SHEET

Before the Court is Motion for Status and Motion to Proceed filed on November 10, 2025, by Petitioner Maurice Blocker. (ECF No. 41.) Petitioner seeks a copy of the docket sheet and to proceed his habeas case by ordering the State to file an answer to the Original Petition with a complete copy of the state proceeding. (Id. at PageID 2189.) With regard to Petitioner’s request to proceed the case, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on November 5, 2025. (ECF No. 39.) “As a general rule the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction and transfers jurisdiction to the court of appeals.” City of Cookeville, Tenn. v. Upper Cumberland Elec. Membership Corp., 484 F.3d 380, 394 (6th Cir. 2007). The district court retains jurisdiction to enforce a judgment, to proceed with matters that will aid the appellate process, and to adjudicate matters unrelated to the issues on appeal. See Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. P'ship, 731 F.3d 608, 626 (6th Cir. 2013). Therefore, the district court is without jurisdiction to proceed on the issues raised in the original petition while the appeal is pending. To the extent Petitioner seeks an answer to the original petition and a copy of the state court proceedings, that information has been filed in the case and served on Petitioner. (See ECF Nos. 12, 17 & 32.) For these reasons, the motion to proceed is DENIED. To the extent Petitioner seeks a copy of the docket sheet, Petitioner’s motion for status is GRANTED. The Clerk mailed Petitioner a copy of the docket sheet on November 12, 2025. The

status of the case is unchanged as there have been no filings since that time. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Petitioner a copy of the docket sheet with this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED, this the 17th day of December, 2025. s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr. JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

MAURICE BLOCKER, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No. 2:22-cv-01270-JTF-atc v. ) ) BRANDON WATWOOD, Warden, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO PROCEED, GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR STATUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK TO MAIL PETITIONER A COPY OF THE DOCKET SHEET

Before the Court is Motion for Status and Motion to Proceed filed on November 10, 2025, by Petitioner Maurice Blocker. (ECF No. 41.) Petitioner seeks a copy of the docket sheet and to proceed his habeas case by ordering the State to file an answer to the Original Petition with a complete copy of the state proceeding. (Id. at PageID 2189.) With regard to Petitioner’s request to proceed the case, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on November 5, 2025. (ECF No. 39.) “As a general rule the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction and transfers jurisdiction to the court of appeals.” City of Cookeville, Tenn. v. Upper Cumberland Elec. Membership Corp., 484 F.3d 380, 394 (6th Cir. 2007). The district court retains jurisdiction to enforce a judgment, to proceed with matters that will aid the appellate process, and to adjudicate matters unrelated to the issues on appeal. See Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. P'ship, 731 F.3d 608, 626 (6th Cir. 2013). Therefore, the district court is without jurisdiction to proceed on the issues raised in the original petition while the appeal is pending. To the extent Petitioner seeks an answer to the original petition and a copy of the state court proceedings, that information has been filed in the case and served on Petitioner. (See ECF Nos. 12, 17 & 32.) For these reasons, the motion to proceed is DENIED. To the extent Petitioner seeks a copy of the docket sheet, Petitioner’s motion for status is GRANTED. The Clerk mailed Petitioner a copy of the docket sheet on November 12, 2025. The

status of the case is unchanged as there have been no filings since that time. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Petitioner a copy of the docket sheet with this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED, this the 17th day of December, 2025. s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr. JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Maurice Blocker v. Brandon Watwood, Warden, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maurice-blocker-v-brandon-watwood-warden-tnwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack