Changizi et al v. Department of Health and Human Services et al, No. 2:2022cv01776 - Document 52 (S.D. Ohio 2022)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 42 First MOTION to Reopen Case by Plaintiffs Mark Changizi, Daniel Kotzin, Michael P. Senger; denying 50 MOTION re 42 First MOTION to Reopen Case by Plaintiffs Mark Changizi, Daniel Kotzin, Michael P Senger. Signed by Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 10/18/2022. (cmw)

Download PDF
Changizi et al v. Department of Health and Human Services et al Doc. 52 Case: 2:22-cv-01776-EAS-CMV Doc #: 52 Filed: 10/18/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 733 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION MARK CHANGIZI, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:22-cv-1776 JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al. Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief From Judgement Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave File Supplement to their Rule 60(b) Motion. (ECF Nos. 42, 50.) These motions are fully at issue. (ECF Nos. 48, 49, 51.) Plaintiffs, however, have also filed two notices of appeal (ECF Nos. 43, 47) and this case is currently on the active docket of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Case No. 22-3573. In this circuit, a “notice of appeal operates to transfer jurisdiction of the case to the court of appeals, and the district court is thereafter without jurisdiction to grant a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).” Pickens v. Howes, 549 F.3d 377, 383 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing First Nat. Bank of Salem, Ohio v. Hirsch, 535 F.2d 343 (6th Cir. 1976)). “Once divested of jurisdiction, the district court may [only] ‘aid the appellate process’ but may not independently grant a Rule 60(b) motion.” Id. The only way for this Court to determine the merits of Plaintiffs’ motions would be for it to issue a decision “indicat[ing] that it would grant the motion [and] [the] appellant should then make a motion in [the Sixth Circuit] for a remand of the case so that the district court can Dockets.Justia.com Case: 2:22-cv-01776-EAS-CMV Doc #: 52 Filed: 10/18/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 734 grant relief.” Id. Here, the Court can neither aid in the appellate process nor does it believe the Plaintiffs’ motions would be granted if it were to consider them. Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs’ motions and DENIES them. (ECF Nos. 42, 50.) The Clerk is DIRECTED to remove these pending motions from the Court’s active docket so that the case may be considered on appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10/18/2022 DATE s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.