1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 98-40347

Summary Calendar

_______________________

ROBERT CHARLES THOMAS

also known as Ahmed A. Azzeem,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, ET AL.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-97-CV-70

___________________________________

April 28, 1999

Before POLITZ, GARWOOD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Ahmed Abdul Azzeem, a/k/a Robert C. Thomas, Texas prisoner 

# 190254, appeals the district court’s order revoking his in

forma pauperis status. After Azzeem filed his notice of appeal

in this civil rights case, the district court entered an order on

July 20, 1998, vacating the final judgment. We treat the July 20

order as a request for remand and authorization to re-open the

case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), and grant the request.

A district court is divested of jurisdiction upon the

docketing in this court of a timely filed notice of appeal. See
No. 98-40347

- 2 -

 

2 The district court entered a final judgment on March 19,

1998, dismissing the case due to plaintiff’s failure to pay the

full filing fee within the time specified.

Alvestad v. Monsanto Co., 671 F.2d 908, 911 n.2 (5th Cir. 1982). 

Although a district court retains jurisdiction to reconsider its

judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), and may deny such relief while

the appeal is pending, the district court may not grant relief

from the judgment while the appeal is pending without obtaining

leave of the court of appeals. See Willie v. Continental Oil

Co., 746 F.2d 1041, 1046 (5th Cir. 1984), vacated by grant of

rehearing en banc, 760 F.2d 87 (5th Cir. 1985), on rehearing, 784

F.2d 706 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc). See also Travelers Ins. Co.

v. Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc., 38 F.3d 1404, 1407 n.3 (5th Cir.

1994) (citing panel opinion in Willie).

Azzeem’s notice of appeal was timely filed on March 12,

1998, within 30 days of the entry of the district court’s 

February 20, 1998, order revoking Azzeem’s in forma pauperis

privilege. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).2 Therefore, the

district court was divested of jurisdiction to vacate the final

judgment. Under these circumstances, we treat the July 20 order

as a request for remand and authorization to re-open the case

pursuant to Rule 60(b). We remand to the district court to

re-open the case and to conduct such further proceedings as are

necessary. We do not retain jurisdiction, and any party desiring

to appeal when a final judgment is entered must file a notice of

appeal at that time.
No. 98-40347

- 3 -

On August 5, 1998, Azzeem was granted permission to appeal

IFP and was ordered to execute all consents and other documents

required by the agency having custody to authorize the necessary

withdrawals from his trust account. Azzeem filed an application

to proceed IFP and a certification of the amount of money in his

trust account, but these documents are not the required documents

to authorize withdrawals. The magistrate judge notified this

court that Azzeem had not made the appropriate financial

arrangements as of November 12, 1998. This court’s and the

district court’s docket sheets do not indicate that this

deficiency has ever been corrected. Azzeem IS ORDERED to submit

the required documents authorizing payment of the appellate

filing fee for this appeal to the district court within 30 days

or risk having his case dismissed in the district court after

remand.

REMANDED.