Opinion

Wallace v. Upton

Court
District Court, E.D. Missouri
Filed
Jun 3, 2022
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.2%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT E. WALLACE, JR., )

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:21-cv-01099-JAR

ALEX DOWNEY, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Robert E. Wallace, Jr.’s motion for

production of documentation (Docket No. 22) and motion for order of protection (Docket No. 23).

In the motion for production, plaintiff requests “video footage” from Potosi Correctional Center,

while in the motion for an order of protection, he seeks an ex parte “order of protection [and]

separation from defendants for protection [and] safety concerns.”

The Court dismissed plaintiffs case without prejudice on April 8, 2022, for failure to

comply with the Court’s order. (Docket No. 13). Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal.

(Docket No. 15). The appeal remains pending.

Once a case has been appealed, the issues before the appellate court should not be

undermined or altered. Liddell by Liddell v. Board of Educ. of City of St. Louis, 73 F.3d 819, 822

(8" Cir. 1996). “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers

jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects

of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58

(1982). To the extent that plaintiff's motions implicate aspects of his case that are involved in his

appeal, they must be denied.

To the extent that plaintiffs motions do not implicate his appeal, they must still be denied.

The motion for production of documentation is subject to dismissal because plaintiff's case has

been dismissed. Additionally, his motion for an order of protection against defendants provides no

factual basis demonstrating that he is in danger or requires such an order.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for production of documentation

(Docket No. 22) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an order of protection (Docket

No. 23) is DENIED.

Dated this 3rd day of June, 2022.

IDNA. ROSS

DHTED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.