Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Keith Dougherty, et al v. Jonathan Snyder

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


March 18, 2011

KEITH DOUGHERTY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS
v.
JONATHAN SNYDER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: William W. Caldwell United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM

We are considering the pro se plaintiff, Keith Dougherty's, motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to take an interlocutory appeal of our orders of January 25, 2011, docketed at doc. nos. 113, 114, 117 and 118. The main order is no. 118, which granted all of the defendants' motions to dismiss and allowed Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. In doing so, we decided that Plaintiff did not have standing to pursue the federal claims. Plaintiff wishes to certify for interlocutory appeal whether he does have standing to pursue those claims as well as the issues presented by nos. 113, 114 and 117.*fn1

Under section 1292(b), we can certify an order for interlocutory appeal if the order "involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation . . ."

We will deny the motion. There is "no controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion," as our January 25, 2011, memorandum and background orders make clear. Further, an immediate appeal will not "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint (doc. 124), which adds new parties. The addition of new parties may resolve the standing issue, or render it irrelevant. Defendants have also filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which are in the process of being briefed. Those motions may be dispositive of the action. If so, Plaintiff will have a final order from which he can appeal.

We will issue an appropriate order.

William W. Caldwell

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KEITH DOUGHERTY, et al., Plaintiffs v. JONATHAN SNYDER, et al., Defendants

CIVIL NO. 1:CV-10-1071

ORDER

AND NOW, this 18th day of March, 2011, it is ordered that Plaintiff's motion (doc. 122) under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to take an interlocutory appeal of our orders of January 25, 2011, docketed at doc. nos. 113, 114, 117 and 118 is denied.

William W. Caldwell

William W. Caldwell United States District Judge


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.