Opinion
18-cv-2817
11-20-2024
RE Fitch, et al. v. Maryland, et al.,
MEMORANDUM
PETER J. MESSITTE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiffs in this closed case have moved for relief from final judgment and for what amounts to an explanatory ruling. Pls.' Mot. for Relief from Final J. & Request for Indicative Ruling (Mot.), ECF No. 243. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion.
The Motion has been accompanied by a Motion for Leave to File a Fifth Amended Complaint (Motion to Amend), ECF No. 243-2. The Court cannot allow Plaintiffs to amend a pleading unless the Court vacates ‘ its Final Judgment. Daulatzai v. Maryland, 91 F.4th 166, 177 (4th Cir. 2024) (“When an action has been dismissed with a final judgment, ‘there is no pending complaint to amend.' Thus, as we have repeatedly recognized, ‘a motion to amend filed after a judgment of dismissal has been entered cannot be considered . until the judgment is vacated.'” (quoting Calvary Christian Ctr. v. Fredericksburg, 710 F.3d 536, 540, 539 (4th Cir. 2013))). Since the Court cannot vacate the Judgment at this time, it cannot allow Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint. A Marginal Order, issuing separately, thus denies the Motion to Amend.'
1. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the case as it is on appeal. See FTC v. Lin, 66 F.4th 164,166 (4th Cir. 2023). “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance-it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (citation omitted); accord Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 258 (4th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff's timely Notice of Appeal, ECF No..236, “stripfped this] district court of jurisdiction to rule on any matters involved in the appeal.” Public Citizen, 749 F.3d at 258;
As Plaintiffs apparently understand, the Court is unable, given the appeal, to grant Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Final Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). See Pls.' Mem. in Supp. of Mot. (Mem.) 2. The Court can, however, “state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 62.1; see Mem. 2. It can also deny such a motion, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 62.1, and does so here.
2. The Motion fails to show the “extraordinary circumstances” necessary for the Court to vacate its order. See Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 500-01 (4th Cir. 2011) (noting that unlike Rule 60(b)(1)-(5), which require a lower burden, 60(b)(6) requires a showing of “extraordinary circumstances” (citation omitted)). “Defendants' refusal to pass Senate Bill 349,” Pls.' Reply 7, ECF No. 245, is not an extraordinary circumstance. Cf. FTC v. Ross, 74 F.4th 186, 194 (4th Cir. 2023) (holding that even a novel interpretation of law by the Supreme Court “is not sufficiently extraordinary” to justify relief under 60(b)(6)).
3. In any event, Plaintiffs' new claims, frankly, appear to lack merit. Their allegations of constitutional and statutory violations are based on a faulty premise, that noncitizens receive better benefits from the State of Maryland than do its citizens. Not so. At most, qualified, lawfully present noncitizens have equal access to buy insurance through the Maryland Health Connection. See Md. Code, Ins. §§ 31-101,108,124 (2024); see also Defs.' Opp'n 8, ECF No. 244 (noting that noncitizens, unlike state retirees such as Plaintiffs, “are not entitled to the benefits of the Medicare Part D program”).
The proper course, in any event, is to let the appeals process go forward.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it shall constitute an Order of the Court and the Clerk is directed to docket it accordingly.