The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
KIM BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
No. 2:24-cv-02571-SHL-atc
)
SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOLS, LEWIS
)
THOMASON, P.C., LAURA DEAKINS,
)
CHERYL R. ESTES, and JAMIE GIBBER,
)
Defendants. )
ORDER DENYING RULE 59 MOTION TO ALTER THE JUDGMENT AND
DENYING AS MOOT RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
On September 9, 2025, this Court granted Defendants’ two motions to dismiss Plaintiff
Kim Brown’s complaint and denied as moot four of Brown’s motions for judicial notice. (ECF
No. 47.) A week later, Brown filed a Renewed Motion for Judicial Notices and Reconsideration
of Denial of Four Judicial Notices. (ECF No. 48.) The following day, however, he filed a notice
of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (ECF No. 49.) Then,
despite his pending appeal, Brown filed in this Court a Rule 59 Motion to Alter the Judgment
and Declaration in Support of Not Being a Tennessee Resident on October 3. (ECF No. 52.)
As to the Rule 59 motion, “[i]t is well settled that the filing of a notice of appeal transfers
jurisdiction over the merits of the appeal to the appellate court.” Sanders v. Taskila, No. 19-CV-
11018, 2023 WL 2530991, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 15, 2023) (citing Workman v. Tate, 958 F. 2d
164, 167 (6th Cir. 1992)). Because Brown filed a notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction
to consider his Rule 59 motion to alter the judgment. See id. Thus, that motion is DENIED.
As to the renewed motion for judicial notice, the Court previously denied Brown’s four
motions for judicial notice of certain letters, emails, and news articles as moot because “the
Court may at its discretion take judicial notice of facts—but not of documents.” (ECF No. 47 at
PageID 666.) In the renewed motion, Brown asks the Court to take notice of “the ‘Facts’ behind
the news articles” he filed on the docket, and not of the documents themselves. (ECF No. 48 at
PageID 671.) In the alternative, he contends that documents can be judicially noticed, citing
cases in which “[p]ublic records and government documents” have received judicial notice. (Id.
at PageID 673.) However, even if local news articles and Brown’s personal correspondence
contained the types of facts, or were the types of documents, that could be judicially noticed—
and the Court maintains that they are not—judicial notice of these facts and documents would
not affect the outcome of the case. Thus, the renewed motion for judicial notice is DENIED AS
MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 15th day of July, 2026.
s/ Sheryl H. Lipman
SHERYL H. LIPMAN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE