Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02388/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02388-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alison Bischoff
Appellee
David Brown
Appellee
Evans Buchheim
Appellee
Robin Carnahan
Appellee
Russell Carnahan
Appellee
City of St. Louis
Appellee
Corrections Medical Services
Appellee
Matthew W. Huckeby
Appellee
Sarah Johnson
Appellee
Jennifer Joyce
Appellee
MSI/Workhouse
Appellee
Mark Meyer
Appellee
Dean Minor
Appellee
Moberly Mailroom
Appellee
John Nocchiero
Appellee
Amy Sandler
Appellee
Sheriff Department
Appellee
Jonathan D. Smith
Appellant
State of Missouri
Appellee
Donnell W. Tanksley
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2388

___________________________

Jonathan D. Smith

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

State of Missouri; City of St. Louis; MSI/Workhouse; Corrections Medical

Services, Corizon; Dean Minor; Matthew W. Huckeby; Sarah Johnson; Alison

Bischoff; Jennifer Joyce; Mark Meyer; David Brown; John Nocchiero; Donnell W.

Tanksley; Amy Sandler; Evans Buchheim; Sheriff Department; Robin Carnahan;

Russell Carnahan; Moberly Mailroom

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - Hannibal

____________

 Submitted: October 22, 2015

Filed: October 30, 2015

[Published]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jonathan Smith appeals fromthe order ofthe District Court dismissing his civil

action without prejudice. The District Court construed Smith’s motion to proceed

Appellate Case: 15-2388 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/30/2015 Entry ID: 4332358 
in forma pauperis on appeal as also seeking relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. The court then determined that it lacked jurisdiction to rule

on the request for Rule 60(b) relief because Smith had simultaneously filed a notice

of appeal (NOA). We agree that the motion should be construed as seeking Rule

60(b) relief, but we hold that the District Court was mistaken in believing that it

lacked authority to rule on the motion, which was filed within 28 days of the district

court’s order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi) (the time to appeal runs from the

date of the order disposing of a Rule 60 motion if that motion is filed within 28 days

of the judgment), 4(a)(4)(B)(i) (if a party files a NOA after judgment is entered but

before the district court disposes of a timely Rule 60 motion, the NOA becomes

effective upon entry of an order disposing of the pending motion); see also, Miles v.

Gen. Motors Corp., 262 F.3d 720, 722 (8th Cir. 2001) (noting that a notice of appeal

filed while a postjudgment motion is pending in the district court “istreated as merely

dormant” until that court rules on the motion). Because Smith’s NOA will not

become effective until after the District Court has ruled on his request for Rule 60(b)

relief, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal at thistime. We will take up Smith’s nowdormant appeal, and his pending appellate motions, after the District Court has ruled

on the postjudgment motion and the appeal ripens. See Miles, 262 F.3d at 722.

The District Court is directed to forward its order ruling on the postjudgment

motion to the clerk of this court.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-2388 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2015 Entry ID: 4332358