70
district court is permitted to act in spite of a pending appeal on the merits include
acting on a motion for stay pending appeal or deciding a motion to proceed on
appeal in forma pauperis, to award costs or fees, to deny relief under Rule 60(b), or
in aid of execution of a judgment that has not been stayed or superseded. United
States v. Brown, 732 F.3d 781, 787 (7th Cir. 2013); Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association v. American Express Co., 467 F.3d 641, 638 (7th Cir. 2006); Lorenz v.
Valley Forge Insurance Co., 23 F.3d 1259, 1260 (7th Cir. 1994); Chicago Downs
Ass’n. v. Chase, 944 F.2d 366, 370 (7th Cir. 1991); Trustees of the Chicago Truck
Drivers, etc. v. Central Transport, Inc., 935 F.2d 114, 119-20 (7th Cir. 1991); Henry
v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1240 (7th Cir. 1986); Patzer v. Board of
Regents of the University of Wisconsin, 763 F.2d 851, 859 (7th Cir. 1985); Cir. R. 57;
see also United States V. Ienco, 126 F.3d 1016 (7th Cir. 1997). For a list of examples,
see Kusay v. United States, 62 F.3d 192, 194 (7th Cir. 1995); see also United States
v. Ramer, 787 F.3d 837, 838 (7th Cir. 2015) (per curiam).
A district court may again act in a case returned to it after the court of
appeals issues its mandate; actions taken before then are a nullity. Kusay v. United
States, 62 F.3d 192, 194 (7th Cir. 1995).
If the appeal is interlocutory, the district court retains the power to proceed
with matters not involved in the appeal or to dismiss the case as settled, thereby
mooting the appeal. Shevlin v. Schewe, 809 F.2d 447, 450-51 (7th Cir. 1987). But
when a preliminary injunction has been appealed and a new motion for preliminary
injunction is filed, there is no jurisdictional bar to the district court resolving that
motion; however, the district court’s ruling may, as a practical matter, moot an
earlier ruling on, and also the appeal of, a preliminary injunction. Adams v. City of
Chicago, 135 F.3d 1150, 1154 (7th Cir. 1998).
Importantly, the district court does not lose jurisdiction when there is a
purported appeal from a non-final, non-appealable order. United States v.
Bastanipour, 697 F.2d 170, 173 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1091 (1983);
see also INTL FCStone Financial Inc. v. Jacobson, 950 F.3d 491, 502-03 (7th Cir.
2020) (the rule in Griggs does not operate when there is a purported appeal from a
non-appealable order).
G. Revision of Judgment During Pendency of Appeal
A party may file a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure directly in the district court at any time during the pendency of an
appeal without seeking prior leave of the appellate court, and the district court has
jurisdiction to consider the motion. Craig v. Ontario Corp., 543 F.3d 872, 875 (7th
Cir. 2008); Chicago Downs Ass’n v. Chase, 944 F.2d 366, 370 (7th Cir. 1991);
Graefenhain v. Pabst Brewing Co., 870 F.2d 1198, 1211 (7th Cir. 1989). “In such
circumstances we have directed district courts to review such motions promptly,
and either deny them or, if the court is inclined to grant relief, to so indicate so that