Taal v. Uliasz

Filing 16

ORDER denying 15 Ex Parte Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.(dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Baboucar B. Taal
v.

Civil No. 13-cv-545-JD
Opinion No. 2014 DNH 209

Gregory Uliasz, et al.
O R D E R
Baboucar B. Taal, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed a complaint and a motion for an emergency preliminary
injunction.

The complaint was dismissed on preliminary review,

and the motion for an emergency preliminary injunction was
terminated.

After his motion for reconsideration was denied,

Taal appealed.

On September 5, 2014, the First Circuit entered

its judgment affirming this court’s decision.

The First Circuit

has not yet issued a mandate.
“The relationship between district court jurisdiction and
the issuance of the appeals court mandate is clear and wellknown:

The filing of a notice of appeal . . . ‘confers

jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district
court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the
appeal.’”

United States v. DeFries, 129 F.3d 1293, 1302 (D.C.

Cir. 1997) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.,
459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)); see also Nevius v. Tomlinson, 2014 WL
1631385, at *1 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 24, 2014); Jackson v. Int’l Fiber
Corp., 2010 WL 148073, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 11, 2010); In re
Utilities Uranium Decontamination & Decommissioning Fund Litig.,
2001 WL 286768, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2001).

Although limited

exceptions to the jurisdictional rule exist, none apply here.
Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s emergency ex
parte motion for injunctive relief (document no. 15) is denied
due to a lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
September 30, 2014
cc:

Baboucar B. Taal, pro se

2