Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-10-01346/USCOURTS-ca3-10-01346-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

ALD-169 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 10-1346

 

BRUCE MURRAY,

 Appellant

v.

SUPT. D. DIGUGLIELMO, Graterford Prison; 

CAPTAIN THOMAS DOHMAN; 

LIEUTENANT JOHN MOYER, Graterford Prison; 

JOHN DOE’S; MARY CANINO, Hearing Examiner

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 09-cv-02310)

District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell

 

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

April 15, 2010

Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed :April 19, 2010)

 

OPINION

 

PER CURIAM

Bruce Murray appeals from an order of the District Court dismissing his “Request

Case: 10-1346 Document: 003110107891 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2010
 The District Court’s order also directed the clerk to forward Murray’s IFP request to 1

this Court. However, as mentioned earlier, we had already granted Murray’s IFP motion.

2

for Forma Pauperis.” For the reasons set forth below, we will summarily affirm. See

I.O.P. 10.6. 

I.

In May 2009, Murray, a pro se prisoner, filed a civil action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Superintendent at the State Correctional Institution at

Graterford (“SCI Graterford”), David DiGuglielmo, as well as several other employees at

SCI Graterford. After Murray filed an amended complaint in the case, the Defendants

moved to dismiss the action. The District Court determined that, even construing the

amended complaint liberally, Murray’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of

limitations. In an August 2009 decision, the District Court dismissed the case pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Murray filed a timely appeal. In November 2009, this Court

granted Murray’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). While his appeal

remained pending in this Court, Murray filed in the District Court a “Request for Forma

Pauperis,” apparently seeking to be granted additional IFP status in the District Court. In

a January 2010 order, the District Court denied the request, finding that because Murray

had already filed an appeal in this Court, the District Court had been divested of

jurisdiction over the case. Murray filed a timely notice of appeal in this Court seeking 1

review of that determination.

Case: 10-1346 Document: 003110107891 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2010
3

II.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The District

Court appropriately denied Murray’s “Request for Forma Pauperis.” As the District

Court correctly noted, Murray had already filed an appeal to this Court of the District

Court’s final judgment and thus the District Court had been divested of jurisdiction. See

Venen v. Sweet, 758 F.2d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 1985) (generally, the filing of a notice of

appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over the case pending disposition of the

appeal). Furthermore, by the time Murray filed his request in the District Court, his IFP

motion had already been granted in this Court.

As there is no substantial question presented by this appeal, we will summarily

affirm. See Third Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. Appellant’s motion for counsel, as well as

his motion requesting transcripts of the complete record and docket entries, are denied.

Case: 10-1346 Document: 003110107891 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/19/2010