Filed: Jul. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 22, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLIAM H. WALLS, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner's numerous filings made after the entry of this Court's decisions docketed as ECF Nos. 77 and 84. Because both decisions closed with an unambiguous directive that Petitioner should make no further filings in this matter, Petitioner's filings made after the entry of ECF No. 84 intentionally violated the Court's order. See ECF No. 84 (explaining to Petitioner that his filings made after the
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLIAM H. WALLS, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner's numerous filings made after the entry of this Court's decisions docketed as ECF Nos. 77 and 84. Because both decisions closed with an unambiguous directive that Petitioner should make no further filings in this matter, Petitioner's filings made after the entry of ECF No. 84 intentionally violated the Court's order. See ECF No. 84 (explaining to Petitioner that his filings made after the e..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WILLIAM H. WALLS, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner's numerous filings made after the entry of this Court's decisions docketed as ECF Nos. 77 and 84. Because both decisions closed with an unambiguous directive that Petitioner should make no further filings in this matter, Petitioner's filings made after the entry of ECF No. 84 intentionally violated the Court's order. See ECF No. 84 (explaining to Petitioner that his filings made after the entry of ECF No. 77 were improper). Moreover, simultaneously with making his recent filings in this matter, Petitioner also filed his notice of appeal, see ECF Nos. 88 and 89, which severed this Court's jurisdiction over this matter. See Venen v. Sweet, 758 F.2d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 1985) ("[the litigant's act of] filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance, immediately conferring jurisdiction on a Court of Appeals and divesting a district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal"); see also Ingram v. Warden, No. 10-4151, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7033, at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2011) ("Simply put, [a litigantj cannot `hedge his bets' by hoping that either continuing proceedings before this Court or his appeal before the Court of Appeals . . . would yield a favorable resul"). F these reasons,
IT IS on this 21 day of July, 2014,
ORDERED that the Clerk shall strike from the docket all Petitioner's submissions (short of Petitioner's notice of appeal, ECF Nos. 88 and filed after the entry of this Court's decision docketed as ECF No. 84; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall make a new and separate entry on the docket of this matter reading, "PETITIONER'S FILINGS MADE AFTER THE COURT'S DECISION ENTERED ON MAY 20, 2014, ARE DEEMED STRICKEN FROM THE DOCKET"; and it is further
ORDERED that any and all Petitioner's future filings, if such are made in this matter, shall automatically be deemed stricken from the docket, without further review and without additional notice to Petitioner; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion an Order upon Petitioner by regular U.S. mail.
