TINDELL v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

Filing 203

ORDER denying 196 Motion to Certify Interlocutory Order for Appeal and Stay. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 8/6/2013. (sps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Archie Tindell,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Commonwealth of Pa., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 11-173 (Erie)

AMBROSE, Senior U.S. District Judge
BAXTER, U.S. Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT
Plaintiff, Archie Tindell, has filed a Motion to Certify Interlocutory Order for Appeal and
Stay. (ECF No. 196). Defendant has responded. (ECF No. 201). The Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff seeks certification of this Court’s order denying his request to disqualify
Magistrate Judge Baxter. The motion to disqualify was based on Plaintiff’s disagreement with
the Magistrate Judge’s prior rulings. The denial of that motion conformed with well-established
law. Thus, the order from which Plaintiff appeals does not (1) involve a controlling question of
law; (2) present an issue on which there exists a substantial ground for difference of opinion;
and (3) present an issue on which an immediate appeal would materially advance the ultimate
termination of litigation.
Plaintiff’s other basis for requesting certification concerns the Magistrate Judge’s denial
of his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 170). The
Magistrate Judge found that the requested relief had no connection to the claims raised in the
First Amended Complaint and directed Plaintiff to file a new complaint containing his unrelated
claims. Plaintiff has failed to do this. A reading of the First Amended Complaint and the

proposed Second Amended Complaint, attached to the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction, demonstrates the correctness of the Magistrate Judge’s ruling.
Again, an interlocutory appeal of that order would not (1) involve a controlling question of law;
(2) present an issue on which there exists a substantial ground for difference of opinion; or (3)
present an issue on which an immediate appeal would materially advance the ultimate
termination of litigation.

BY THE COURT:
/s/Donetta W. Ambrose
Donetta W. Ambrose
Senior Judge, U.S. District Court
DATE: August 6, 2013