The Honor able J. Ronni e Gr eer , United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Tenne ssee, sitting by

desig nation. -1-



### F ile N am e: 09a 0299 n. 06 F ile d: A pr il 22, 200 9 NOT RE COM MEN DED FO R F ULL -TEX T P UBL ICA TION N o. 06- 3739 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT DO NA LD R. AD KIN S, ) P etitioner -Appellant, ) ) ON AP P EAL FR OM THE UNITE D v ) STA TES D ISTRIC T C OU RT F OR THE ) SOU THER

N D ISTRIC T OF OHI O ) RO B JE F F RE YS, Wa r de n, ) Respondent-Appellee. ) ) Before: CLAY and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; and GREER, DistrictJudge * GREER, District

Judge. Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla nt a pp e a ls f ro m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of his pro se motion for rec onsideration, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Feder al Rules of Civil P roce dure, of the de nial of his habea s corpus pe tition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Finding no e rror in the district

c ourt ’s de nia l of

the mot ion , w e a ff

ir m. I. On No v em b er

1 8 , 2 0 0 4 , Do n al d

R

. A d k i n s (“ Ad k i n s ”) , an Oh i o s t at e p ri s o n er s er v i n g a

seven- y ear sentenc e on convictions for sexual battery and felonious assault, filed a pe t i t i o n u nder 28 U. S.C. § 2 25 4 f

or a wr it o f ha

be a s c or pu s in the dis tr ic t c ourt . O n July 8, 20 05 , th e Ma g istrate J udg e issued a Re port and Recommendation rec ommending that Adkins’ petition be dismiss ed due-2-

to A dk ins ’ f

a ilure to e sta

bli shc a us e and pr e jud ic e fo r the pr oc e dura l def a ult of his c la ims . A dk ins ’ objections to the Report and Recommendation were overr uled by the district court on De cembe r 6, 2005, and Adkins’ pe tition was dismi ssed. On Dec ember 27, 2005, Adkins filed a notice of a ppeal from the dismissal of hi s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the dist rict cour t construed a s

a re quest for a

cer tificate of appea lability . Adkins’ appe al was doc keted in this court as ca se number 06-3020. On January

18, 2006, the district court de nied Adkins’ a c ertificate of a ppeala bility

. Whil e his appe al was pe nding in this court, Adkins f i l ed a “Mot ion for Reconsider ation/Reopening ” in the di strict court. On Marc h 15, 2006, the district court de nied the mot ion on the groun ds th at the no tic e of a pp e a l ha d le ft

the dis tr ic t c ourt

wi tho ut j ur isd ic tio n to consider A dkins’ Rule 60(b) motion. The district cour t further held that i ts “re view of pe titioner’s mot ion do e s n ot r e ve a l any

g ro un ds on

wh ic h th e c ourt

wo uld be dis po se d to gr ant re lie f, we re thi s action to be rema

nded [ to the district court] for conside ration of pe titioner’s motion.” Adkins then filed the instant appe al on May 2, 2006. After direc ting Adkins to show cause why his May 2 notice of a ppeal should not be dismissed as untimely , this court remanded the case to the district court “ for the limited purpose of treating the notice of a

ppeal a s a F ed. R. App. P

. 4 (a )( 5 ) motion for extension of time.” The r equest for an

e xten sio n o f t ime to f

ile the a pp e a l w a s g ra

nte d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

on Au g us t 24 , 2 00 6. I n th e same order , the district court de nied Adkins’ re quest for a cer tificate of appea lability . On Novembe r 2, 2006, this Court denied a ce rtifi ca t e o f ap p ealability in case number 06-3020. O n November 11, 20 07 , a c e rt if ic a te of a pp e a la bil ity wa s g ra nte d in the in st ant c a se and

c ouns e l w a s a

pp oin te d to repr esent Adkins. II.-3-

This case prese nts the straig htforwa rd i ssue of the proper pr ocedur e to be f ollowed when a party makes a motion under Rule 60(b) to vac ate the judg ment of the district cour t after a notice of

a pp e a l ha s b e e n fi le d. I n thi s c a se , th e dis tr ic t c ourt he ld t hat it la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n o ve r A dk ins ’ R

ule 60(b) motion for rec onsideration beca use the Dec ember 27, 2005, notice of appe al had tra nsfer red jurisdiction of the ca se to the co u rt of appe als. The district cour t, however , went fur

ther a nd revie wed the me rits of Adkins’ motion, finding “ no g rounds on which the c ourt would be disposed to gr ant re lief . . . .” A dkins now contends that the dist ri ct court e rre d when it denied his motion, arguing that the notice of appea l did not prevent the district cour t from consider ing the merits of the motion. I t is c le ar t

hat the fi lin g of a no tic e of a pp e a l op e rate s to tr ans fe r jur isd ic tio n of the c a se to the court of appea ls, a

nd the district c ourt is the rea fter without jurisdiction except to act in aid of the appea l. Un ite d S

tat es v . G ar c ia-Ro ble

s, __ F.3d __

, 20 09 WL 93 72 44 (6 th Cir . Apr . 2 00 9) ; Hogg v. United States , 4 11 F .2 d 57 8, 58 0 ( 6th Cir . 1 96 9) ; Keohane v . Swarco, Inc. , 3 20 F .2 d 4 29 , 4 32 (6 th Cir . 1 96 3) . “ A t ime ly

a pp e a l di ve sts the dis tr ic t c ourt of jur isd ic tio n to re c on sid e r i ts j ud g me nt u nti l the case is r emande d by the court of appe als.” Dunham v. U nited States , 486 F.3d 931, 935 ( 6th Cir. 20 07 ). At the tim e of the fi lin g of

Ad kin s’ Rul e 60 (b ) m oti on , h e a lr e a dy ha d a n a pp e a l pe nd ingin this court which deprive d the district court of jur isdiction to rule on the motion, as the district court

corr ectly held. This Court first presc ribed a proce dure to be utiliz ed whe n a Rule 60(b) motion is filed in the d i s t ri ct co urt while an a

ppeal is pendingin the court of a ppeals in F

ir s t N a ti o n a l B a n k

o f S a lem, Ohio v. Hirsch , 535 F.2d 343( 6th Cir. 1976). Under the proce dures outlined in Hirsch , w he re a pa rt y wi sh e s to fi le a

Rul e 60 (b ) m oti on

bu t ha s a lr e a dy

fi le d a no tic e of a pp e a l,-4- the prope r proc edure is for him to file his moti on in the [ d ] istrict [c] ourt. I f that cour

t indicates that it wi l l gr ant the motion, the appellant should then make a motion to this court for a re mand of the case in order that the [d] istrict [ c]ourt may g rant the motion . . . . Id. a t 34 6. I f the dis tr ic t c ourt is no t dis po se d to g ra nt t he mot ion , “ the a

pp e a l w ill be c on sid e re d in regular c ourse.” Id. The de cision of whethe r to c onsider the post-judgme nt motion while an a ppeal is pending is within t he district cour t’s discretion, and the re is no er ror if the district court dec ides to let the appea l run its course. LSJ Inve st me n t C o . v. O. L

. D., Inc., 167 F.3d 320, 324 ( 6th Cir. 1999). I n th is ca se , the dis tr ic t court c or re c tly he ld tha

t it ha d n o ju ri sd ic tio n to de c ide Ad

kin s’ Rul e 60(b) motion and followe d prec isely the proc edure established in Hirsch

. Although the district court was not re quired to do so, it never theless exercised its discre tion and considered t h e merits of petitioner’s motion for re consideration and found no g rounds on which the district c ourt would be dis po se d to g ra

nt r e lie f. Th e re wa s n o a

bu se of dis c re tio n in the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of Ad kin s’ motion.Finally , the petitioner a rg ues that si nce his appea l as t o the merits of the de nial of his petition f o r a w r i to f h a b e a s c o r p u s w a s c o n c l u d e d

w h e nt h i s C o u rtd e n i e d

h i m a c e rt i f i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i t y, the jurisdictional impediment to the district court’s consider ation of his motion has been r emoved, and we should r emand the case for consideration of the motion on the merits. We de cline to do so. The district c ourt’s order indicates that it ha s alre ady considere d the merits of the motion and found no basis to gr ant re lief. In addition, Adkins’ motion for reconsider ation raises no c laims the district

c ourt did no t f ull y c on sid e r i n its de nia l of

the pe tit ion

fo r w ri t of

ha be a s c or pu s a nd thi s c ourt , in de n y in g th e c e rti f

ic a te o f a p p e a la b il it y , f o u n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s r e s o luti o n o f th o s e c la ims not-5-

debata ble by jurists of rea son. A rema nd of the c ase w ould, theref ore, be a co m p l ete wa ste of jud ic ia l r e so ur c e s. III . For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the dec ision of the district court.