-ERG Tunne v. Paducah Police Department et al, No. 5:2008cv00188 - Document 98 (W.D. Ky. 2011)

Court Description: 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)

Download PDF
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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.