Pitts v. Payne

E.D. Arkansas

Pitts v. Payne

DecidedJune 28, 2022

Docket5:15-cv-00354

StatusUnknown

This text of Pitts v. Payne (Pitts v. Payne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pitts v. Payne, (E.D. Ark. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION

EUGENE ISSAC PITTS, ADC #73537 PETITIONER

No. 5:15-cv-354-DPM

DEXTER PAYNE, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction RESPONDENT

ORDER 1. Before the Court is Pitts’s motion to amend, which the Court treats as one made under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e). BBCA, Inc. v. United States, 954 F.2d 1429, 1432 (8th Cir. 1992). This Court has jurisdiction even though Pitts subsequently filed a notice of appeal. FED. R. App. P. 4(a)(4); 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2821 (3d ed. 2022). His motion to correct or clarify the record, Doc. 82, is denied as moot. 2. The Court stands by its conclusions in the final Order and Judgment, Doc. 75 & 76. Pitts repeats the same arguments that this Court has considered and rejected. He may raise those issues with the Court of Appeals. Doc. 75 at 5. The motion to amend, Doc. 77, is denied.

So Ordered. NIM Aaspoll je D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge □□ pve AOAD

-2-

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION

EUGENE ISSAC PITTS, ADC #73537 PETITIONER

No. 5:15-cv-354-DPM

DEXTER PAYNE, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction RESPONDENT

ORDER 1. Before the Court is Pitts’s motion to amend, which the Court treats as one made under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e). BBCA, Inc. v. United States, 954 F.2d 1429, 1432 (8th Cir. 1992). This Court has jurisdiction even though Pitts subsequently filed a notice of appeal. FED. R. App. P. 4(a)(4); 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2821 (3d ed. 2022). His motion to correct or clarify the record, Doc. 82, is denied as moot. 2. The Court stands by its conclusions in the final Order and Judgment, Doc. 75 & 76. Pitts repeats the same arguments that this Court has considered and rejected. He may raise those issues with the Court of Appeals. Doc. 75 at 5. The motion to amend, Doc. 77, is denied.

So Ordered. NIM Aaspoll je D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge □□ pve AOAD

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pitts v. Payne, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitts-v-payne-ared-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack