Opinion ID: 688699
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 43 First, the State maintains that the district court lacked jurisdiction to assess the sanctions because of the pendency of Alberti II in this court. This argument is without merit. Although notice of appeal typically divests the district court of jurisdiction, a district court maintains jurisdiction as to matters not involved in the appeal.... Farmhand, Inc. v. Anel Eng'g Indus., 693 F.2d 1140, 1145 (5th Cir.1982). Additionally, we have stated that [t]he district court maintains jurisdiction for other matters, such as ordering stays or modifying injunctive relief. Id. at 1146. Finally, we have recognized the continuing jurisdiction of the district court in support of its judgment, as long as that judgment has not been superseded. Id. Accordingly, [u]ntil the judgment has been properly stayed or superseded, the district court may enforce it through contempt sanctions. United States v. Revie, 834 F.2d 1198, 1205 (5th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1205, 108 S.Ct. 2845, 101 L.Ed.2d 882 (1988). 44 In the instant case, we specifically denied the State's motion for a stay in the district court during the pendency of the Alberti II appeal. Alberti v. The Sheriff of Harris County, Nos. 90-2441, 90-6034, 91-2210, 91-2274, slip op. (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 1991). The district court retained jurisdiction to enforce its judgment that the State was primarily responsible for the unconstitutional conditions in the county jails. See Revie, 834 F.2d at 1205; Farmhand, 693 F.2d at 1146.