# Wallace v. Upton

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · June 3, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10237108

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** June 3, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10237108

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10237108. Public record. Not legal advice.