Pitchford v. Turbitt
ORDER denying 30 Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Order. This action is closed, and the Court lacks authority to vacate a Dismissal Order affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Signed by Judge G. Thomas Eisele on 5/20/09. (jct)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION FREDERICK L. PITCHFORD v. No. 3:06-CV-00044 GTE PLAINTIFF
DANIEL MADDEN TURBITT, UNITED STATES MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ORDE R
Before the Court is a Petition to Vacate Order filed by Plaintiff Frederick L. Pitchford, pro se. Pitchford contends that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction when it entered an Order of Dismissal on October 13, 2006 (Docket No. 15) ("Dismissal Order"). Pitchford invoked the Court's jurisdiction to challenge the actions of an Administrative Law Judge with the United States Merit Systems Protection Board who presided over an appeal of Pitchford's termination from the United States Postal Services, a federal agency. The motion is hereby DENIED. The Court's Dismissal Order was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 14, 2008. (See Docket No. 23). Pitchford sought a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court to review the Eighth Circuit's decision. The petition was denied. (See Docket No. 28). This action is closed, and the Court lacks the authority to vacate a Dismissal Order affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Order (Docket No. 1
30) be, and it is hereby, DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of May, 2009. _/s/Garnett Thomas Eisele___________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?