Tunne v. Paducah Police Department et al
Filing
98
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 96 Motion to Strike; denying 97 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr on 9/3/11. cc:counsel, Plaintiff (pro se) (JBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08-CV-00188-JHM
MARK TUNNE
PLAINTIFF
V.
PADUCAH POLICE DEPT., et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Mark Tunne’s Motion to Strike [DN 96] and
Motion for Reconsideration [DN 97]. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED.
I. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has moved the court to strike Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Reconsider [DN89] on account of the Defendants’ failure to properly serve the required proposed
order with the Response. Plaintiff has also moved the Court to strike its Memorandum, Opinion and
Order dated July 18, 2011 [DN 93] as well as to strike his own Reply to Defendants’ Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider [DN 94]. In addition, Plaintiff has filed another Motion for
Reconsideration [DN 97].
“As a general rule the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction and
transfers jurisdiction to the court of appeals. This, however, is not an inflexible rule. Thus this court
has consistently held that a district court retains jurisdiction to proceed with matters that are in aid
of the appeal.” Cochran v. Birkel, 651 F.2d 1219, 1221 (6th Cir. 1981) (internal citations omitted).
The Court finds that an undertaking of the motions before it would not aid in the appeal of
this matter. The issues that Plaintiff contends require reversal are issues that have been addressed
by the Court previously. These are issues that are more appropriately handled by the Court of
Appeals. Finding that a timely notice of appeal has been filed by Plaintiff and that this matter is
currently pending in the Court of Appeals, the Court finds that it has been divested of jurisdiction
to hear these motions.
II. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Mark Tunne’s
Motion to Strike [DN 96] and Motion for Reconsideration [DN 97] are DENIED without prejudice.
September 3, 2011
cc: counsel of record
Mark Tunne, pro se
2
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?