Stephens v. Alaska Division of Elections, State of Alaska

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
JOE STEPHENS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALASKA DIVISION OF ELECTIONS,
STATE OF ALASKA,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:21-cv-00018-RRB
ORDER RE: POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s three post-judgment motions at Dockets 14,
16, and 19. On February 10, 2022, the Court dismissed the above-captioned case
for lack of jurisdiction.1 On February 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment.2 On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal and Motion to
Alter Judgment.3 On March 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a New Trial.4
Jurisdiction is “[a] court’s power to decide a case or issue a decree.”5 	A
court’s 	subject 	matter 	jurisdiction 	is 	its 	“statutory 	or 	constitutional 	power 	to
1 Dockets 12, 13.
2 Docket 14.
3 Dockets 15, 16.
4 Docket 19.
5 B LACK ’S L AW DICTIONARY (9th ed. 2009) (definition of “jurisdiction”).
Case 1:21-cv-00018-RRB Document 21 Filed 03/16/22 Page 1 of 3

1:21-cv-00018-RRB, Stephens v. Alaska Division of Elections
Order Re: Post-Judgment Motions
Page 2 of 3
adjudicate a case.”6 As a federal district court, this Court has limited subject matter
jurisdiction. 	It possesses “only that power authorized by the Constitution and
statute.”7 This means that the Court has the authority to hear only specified types
of cases.8 	The United States Supreme Court has established that “the federal
courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction[.]”9
Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) requires that if a federal district
court “determines at any time that is lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action.” 	Once a court has determined it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, it cannot not decide any further issues.10
A federal district court’s jurisdiction is also impacted by the appeals process.
A notice of appeal generally divests a federal district court of jurisdiction.11 	The
6 Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998).
7 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted);
see also, e.g., A-Z Intern. v. Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003).
8 See, 	e.g., 	United 	States 	v. 	Marks, 	530 	F.3d 	779, 	810 	(9th 	Cir. 	2008) 	(citing
DaimlerChrysler v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 (2006)); United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d
1005, 1010 (9th Cir. 2000).
9 United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742 (1995).
10 See supra note 5.
11 Kern Oil & Ref. Co. v. Tenneco Oil Co., 840 F.2d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 1988).
Case 1:21-cv-00018-RRB Document 21 Filed 03/16/22 Page 2 of 3

1:21-cv-00018-RRB, Stephens v. Alaska Division of Elections
Order Re: Post-Judgment Motions
Page 3 of 3
purpose of this is “is to avoid the potential confusion and waste of resources from
having the same issue before two separate courts at the same time.”12
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	The Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket 14 is DENIED AS
MOOT, because of the Court’s Order of Dismissal at Docket 12 for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
2. 	The Motion to Alter Judgment at Docket 16 is DENIED for lack of
jurisdiction due to the Notice of Appeal filed at Docket 15.
3. 	The Motion for a New Trial at Docket 19 is DENIED for lack of
jurisdiction due to the Notice of Appeal filed at Docket 19.
4. 	Plaintiff should direct all further filings to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of March, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
12 In re Silberkraus, 336 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2003).
Case 1:21-cv-00018-RRB Document 21 Filed 03/16/22 Page 3 of 3