NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 22-1632, 22-1633, 22-1634, 22-1635 & 22-1636 (Cons.)

__________

JENN-CHING LUO,

Appellant

v.

OWEN J. ROBERTS SCHOOL DISTRICT; GEOFFREY BALL; 

CATHY A. SKIDMORE; KERI KOLBAY; SHARON W. MONTANYE

____________________________________

JENN-CHING LUO,

Appellant

v.

OWEN J. ROBERTS SCHOOL DISTRICT; GEOFFREY BALL;

SHARON W. MONTANYE; SWEET STEVENS KATZ WILLIAMS LLP;

THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

____________________________________

JENN-CHING LUO,

Appellant

v.

OWEN J. ROBERTS SCHOOL DISTRICT; 

THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

____________________________________
2

JENN-CHING LUO,

Appellant

v.

OWEN J. ROBERTS SCHOOL DISTRICT; SHARON W. MONTANYE;

SWEET STEVENS KATZ WILLIAMS LLP; JAMES GERL;

THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

____________________________________

JENN-CHING LUO,

 Appellant

v.

OWEN J. ROBERTS SCHOOL DISTRICT; DAN O’BRIEN;

MICHAEL J. MCELLIGOTT; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action Nos. 2:14-cv-06354, 2:16-cv-06568, 

2:17-cv-01508; 2:21-cv-01098; 2:21-cv-05000)

District Judge: Honorable Petrese B. Tucker

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 1, 2023

Before: JORDAN, CHUNG, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 30, 2023)

___________

OPINION*

___________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
3

PER CURIAM

In these five consolidated appeals, pro se appellant Jenn-Ching Luo challenges a

District Court order purporting to dismiss “all” of his claims in three separate actions. 

We conclude that the order is final and immediately appealable only as to one case, but 

that it is not immediately appealable as a final judgment or under the collateral order 

doctrine with respect to the remaining cases. We will therefore affirm in part and dismiss 

in part for lack of jurisdiction.1

This matter arises out of suits brought by Luo, the father of B.L., a special needs 

student in the Owen J. Roberts School District, challenging the process by which he 

sought education services for B.L. The litigation has a complicated procedural history

which we briefly discuss here. 

Initially, Luo2 filed an administrative due process complaint alleging that the 

School District failed to provide B.L. with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), 

as required by the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 

§ 1400, et seq. In particular, the complaint challenged the School District’s decision to 

deny B.L. placement in a residential program and alleged that certain procedural 

violations denied Luo meaningful participation in B.L.’s educational programming. 

1 We initially reached this conclusion in a June 15, 2023, opinion. Because we had raised 

the jurisdictional issue sua sponte, we later granted Lou’s petition for panel rehearing to 

consider the jurisdictional arguments in his petition. Having done so, we issue this new 

opinion, again affirming in part and dismissing in part for lack of jurisdiction.

2 Although B.L.’s mother joined in the due process complaint and other administrative 

filings, we note only Luo’s participation, as he is the only Plaintiff/Appellant. 
4

Following a hearing in August 2014, Hearing Officer Cathy A. Skidmore ordered an 

independent educational evaluation (IEE) in order to determine B.L.’s needs regarding 

residential placement and to compensate the parents for certain procedural violations. 

Luo objected in writing to the decision to obtain an IEE and advised of his intent to 

appeal. The School District nevertheless proceeded to obtain an IEE, which was 

conducted by Keri Kolbay, a school psychologist, based on B.L.’s educational records. It 

revised B.L.’s Individual Education Plan (IEP) based on Kolbay’s recommendations in 

the IEE, again over the parents’ objections.

Luo filed a complaint at E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2:14-cv-06354 (Luo I),

3 challenging the 

Hearing Officer’s decision to order the IEE; that count was brought pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 

§ 1415(i)(2), which provides a party aggrieved by a hearing officer’s decision under the 

IDEA the right to bring a civil action in a district court. The complaint also alleged

claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his Fifth and Fourteenth 

Amendment due process rights.

4

 Luo named as defendants the School District, Geoffrey 

Ball, a Special Education Supervisor with the School District, and Skidmore. He later 

3 Unless otherwise noted, all ECF references are to this district court docket.

4 Luo also filed four additional administrative due process complaints, which were 

consolidated. The Hearing Officer found in favor of Luo on all issues, concluding, inter 

alia, that the School District erred in procuring the IEE while the parents’ appeal was 

pending, and violated the parents’ procedural due process rights by releasing B.L.’s 

records to Kolbay without their consent. See E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2:15-cv-02952 (Luo II) 

ECF No. 15-1 at 19. The School District filed a complaint in the District Court seeking 

review. See Luo II. That case is not part of this appeal.
5

amended his complaint to add the School District’s counsel, Sharon Montanye, and 

Kolbay.

In an order entered October 31, 2016, the District Court, adopting in part a 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), dismissed with prejudice the 

claims against Skidmore and Montanye, and all Fifth Amendment and IDEA claims. See

ECF No. 48. The remaining claims against the School District were dismissed without 

prejudice to Luo’s right to replead the claims in a second amended complaint. The 

District Court denied Ball and Kolbay’s motions to dismiss without prejudice to their 

right to raise the same defenses in a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint. In 

that same order, the District Court addressed Luo II and a related action filed by Luo at 

E.D. Pa Civ. No. 2:15-cv-04248 (Luo III). Regarding Luo III, the District Court 

dismissed certain claims with prejudice; the remaining claims, which it determined were 

substantially identical to claims raised in Luo I, were dismissed without prejudice to Luo 

presenting those claims, and “any claims not dismissed with prejudice” in Luo I, in a 

“second amended consolidated complaint” to be filed in Luo I within 30 days. Finally, 

the District Court closed the matter in Luo III. 

Luo filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the order and a motion to reopen 

Luo III. The District Court denied the motions, stating that “Luo shall have until 

December 23, 2016 to file a second amended consolidated complaint in [Luo I] setting 

forth all claims not dismissed with prejudice in either [Luo I or Luo III]. Failure to file 

this document by that date shall result in the dismissal with prejudice of all claims 
6

dismissed without prejudice in my October 31, 2016 amended order.” ECF No. 59 at 2. 

Rather than file an amended complaint, Luo appealed the dismissal order.5

 The District 

Court stayed the matter in Luo I, pending the appeal. See ECF No. 60. 

Over time, Luo filed four more complaints related to B.L.’s education services. 

See E.D. Pa. Civ. Nos. 2:16-cv-06568 (Luo IV); 2:17-cv-01508 (Luo V); 2:21-cv-01098

(Luo VI); & 2:21-cv-05000 (Luo VII). In May 2021, the District Court entered an order 

consolidating Luo I, Luo II, Luo IV, Luo V, and Luo VI, along with another case not at 

issue here, for administrative purposes only. See ECF No. 83. By order entered March 

21, 2022, the District Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed 

with prejudice “all of plaintiff’s claims” in Luo I, Luo VI, and Luo VII. ECF No. 107. 

Luo filed a notice of appeal from that order, which was filed in each of those cases. He 

also filed a notice of appeal in Luo IV and Luo V, citing the March 21 order, and arguing 

for an “interlocutory appeal” in those cases. See E.D. Pa. Civ. Nos. 2:16-cv-06568, ECF 

No. 30 at 2 n.1; 2:17-cv-01508, ECF No. 25 at 2 n.1. The appeals were consolidated for 

all purposes by Clerk order.

Although the parties agree that we have jurisdiction over the appeals before us, 

“we have an independent duty to satisfy ourselves of our appellate jurisdiction regardless 

5 As pertinent here, we affirmed the District Court’s order to the extent it dismissed the 

claims without prejudice in Luo III, noting that the “effective consolidation of the two 

complaints was purely for administrative efficiency and had no effect on Luo’s ability to 

proceed with these causes of action.” Luo v. Owen J. Roberts Sch. Dist., 737 F. App'x 

111, 115 (3d Cir. 2018) (per curiam).
7

of the parties’ positions.” Papotto v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 731 F.3d 265, 

269 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Generally, our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

is limited to “final decisions of the district courts.” A final order ends the litigation on 

the merits and leaves nothing for the District Court to do but execute the judgment. See

Republic Nat. Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 334 U.S. 62, 68 (1948). The order must end the 

litigation as to all claims and all parties. See Andrews v. United States, 373 U.S. 334, 

340 (1963). If the order is final as to any one of the consolidated cases, we have

jurisdiction over the appeal in that case. See Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118, 1131 (2018)

(recognizing that when “one of several consolidated cases is finally decided, a 

disappointed litigant is free to seek review of that decision in the court of appeals” even if 

one of the other consolidated cases remains pending). 

Luo I, Luo IV, Luo V & Luo VI

In the memorandum opinion accompanying its March 2022 dismissal order, the 

District Court noted that the complaint in Luo I “sought review of the Hearing Officer’s 

Decision” pursuant to § 1415(i)(2) and alleged § 1983 claims, among others, against the 

various defendants. See ECF No. 106 at 6. But the District Court never addressed the 

§ 1415(i)(2) count in either its opinion or order, nor had it disposed of the claim in its

October 2016 dismissal order. In their initial motion to dismiss filed in 2015, the School 

District and Ball asserted that “the only cognizable claim in [Luo’s] Amended Complaint 

is his request for this Court to review the administrative special education due process 

hearing pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A).” ECF No. 12-1 at 13. At that time, the 
8

Magistrate Judge recommended denying in part Ball and Kolbay’s motions to dismiss 

without prejudice because resolution of certain claims could be impacted by the outcome 

of the § 1415(i)(2) claims in Luo I and Luo II challenging the Hearing Officers’ 

decisions. See ECF No. 35 at 2, 16-17, 24-27. The District Court never resolved the 

§ 1415 claims in either of those cases. 

We also agree with Luo that the § 1983 claims against Ball in Luo I remain 

outstanding. In describing the “Facts and Procedural Background” of Luo I in its March 

2022 opinion, the District Court stated that the R&R was “approved and adopted,” that 

“Luo’s claims were dismissed outright, or . . . eventually dismissed for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted.” ECF No. 106 at 7. But only the Fifth 

Amendment and IDEA claims against Ball were dismissed with prejudice in 2016; Ball’s 

motion to dismiss was otherwise denied. See ECF No. 48 at 2.6

 The District Court’s 

March 2022 order purported to dismiss “all of Plaintiff’s claims” in Luo I with prejudice. 

ECF No. 107 at 2. However, the accompanying opinion addressed the claims against the 

6 The remaining claims against Ball include “Claim 1” (failure to give prior notice of the 

inclusion of a parent training provision in B.L.’s IEP) and “Claim 2” (issuing a Notice of 

Recommended Educational Placement (NOREP) absent authority), which the Magistrate 

Judge concluded were properly pled. The R&R noted that the hearing officer had issued 

a decision, which neither Luo nor the School District appealed, finding that the School 

District’s “IEP and NOREP of June 2014 did violate the procedural protections in the 

IDEA.” ECF No. 35 at 24-25. As a result, the Magistrate Judge concluded, “it simply 

cannot be said, as a matter of law, that Claims 1 and 2 do not plausibly state claims for

which relief might be granted.” Id. at 25. 
9

School District and Ball in Luo VI and Luo VII;

7 the remaining claims against Ball from 

the amended complaint in Luo I were never addressed.8 

The District Court also failed to address the § 1415 counts raised in Luo VI. The 

complaint in that case challenged Hearing Officer James Gerl’s decisions to dismiss two 

due process complaints and requested that the District Court “vacate [the] hearing 

officer’s order[s].” E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2:21-cv-01098, ECF No. 1 at 2, 10-14. In reciting 

the background facts of Luo VI, the District Court stated that Luo asked it to vacate one 

of the hearing officer’s decisions, apparently raising an IDEA claim under § 1415. See

ECF No. 106 at 9. Nevertheless, in its discussion dismissing abuse of process and civil 

conspiracy claims against Gerl, the District Court specifically stated that “[i]f [Luo] 

believed that Defendant Gerl made an error, it was [Luo’s] right to appeal any of 

Defendant Gerl’s rulings and, instead, [Luo] filed this lawsuit against him an in attempt 

to get the same relief that should have been raised in an appeal.” Id. at 18. Thus, it is 

clear the § 1415 counts in Luo VI remain outstanding.

7 The District Court also addressed in its opinion claims that were presented in the 

complaint in Luo IV, although they were not dismissed in the order, nor did the District 

Court indicate that it was considering that case. See ECF Nos. 106 at 5-6, 19-22, 25-26; 

107. 

8 In a footnote, the District Court indicated that the dismissal of the claims in Luo I was 

affirmed by this Court. See ECF No. 106 at 26 n.9. But we considered only the appeal 

of Luo III, affirming the District Court’s dismissal of Luo’s claims in that action without 

prejudice to his filing an amended complaint in Luo I to include those claims. See Luo, 

737 F. App’x at 115. And, as Luo argues, he was not required to amend his complaint in 

any event. See id. at 114-15 (noting that Luo chose not to file a second amended 

complaint but rather elected to stand on his complaint in Luo III). 
10

Because the March 21, 2022 order did not resolve all claims as to all parties in 

either Luo I or Luo VI, it is not a final order for purposes of § 1291 as to those cases. 

Nor is the dismissal order appealable in those cases under the collateral order doctrine 

because it is effectively reviewable on appeal from the final judgment. Mohawk Indus., 

Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 103 (2009) (noting that the collateral order doctrine 

provides for appeal of “a small set of prejudgment orders that are ‘collateral to’ the merits 

of an action and ‘too important’ to be denied immediate review”).9

 We will therefore 

dismiss the appeals in C.A. Nos. 22-1632, 22-1633, 22-1634 and 22-1635 for lack of 

jurisdiction.

Luo VII

In June 2021, Luo filed a due process complaint alleging that the School District 

failed to follow the IDEA regulations in preparing an April 2021 reevaluation report, 

including failing to provide him proper written notice regarding the reevaluation and

failing to properly assess B.L. He requested that the Hearing Officer, Michael J. 

9 Turning to the appeals in Luo IV and Luo V, Luo argues in his notices of appeal that 

this Court should consider interlocutory appeals in those cases to the extent that the 

District Court’s order denied his motion to strike the motions to dismiss and his motion 

for default judgment. The District Court’s order did not dismiss the claims in Luo IV or 

Luo V, nor does it appear that it ruled on Luo’s motions to strike and for entry of default 

in those cases. See ECF No. 107. Even assuming it had addressed those motions, the 

order would not be immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. See

Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 103; see also Adult Film Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Thetford, 776 F.2d 

113, 115 (5th Cir. 1985) (holding that the denial of a motion for default judgment is not 

appealable under the collateral order doctrine). 
11

McElligott, strike the reevaluation report.

10 The School District disputed the complaint. 

The Hearing Officer determined that the reevaluation process and report were

appropriate; however, because the parties “misunderstood” each other’s position 

regarding aspects of the reevaluation process, he ordered another independent 

reevaluation (IEE). E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2:21-cv-05000, ECF No. 14-2 at 11.11 In his 

complaint filed in the District Court, Luo sought to vacate Hearing Officer McElligott’s 

decision, challenging his determination that the reevaluation was appropriate and his 

authority to sua sponte order an IEE. The complaint also brought § 1983 claims against 

the School District, Dan O’Brien (the school psychologist who evaluated B.L. and wrote 

the reevaluation report), Hearing Officer McElligott, and the Pennsylvania Department of 

Education (PDOE), related to the reevaluation report and process, and the due process 

hearing. The District Court determined that the School District was not liable for the 

denial of a FAPE, thereby denying any claim that may have arisen under § 1415(i)(2), 

and that the claims also failed to state a claim for relief pursuant to §1983.

12 See ECF 

No. 106 at 33-35. Because the District Court disposed of all of Luo’s claims, we have 

jurisdiction over the appeal in Luo VII. See Hall, 138 S. Ct. at 1131.

10 Reevaluations of each child with a disability are conducted to determine ongoing 

disability and educational needs. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.301, 300.305.

11 All ECF references hereafter are to this district court docket (Luo VII).

12 While Luo only alleged violations of § 1983 in his complaint, many of the allegations 

related to procedures and rights under IDEA. Luo also sought remedies available under 

the IDEA, such as compensatory education. The District Court, apparently construing 

the pro se complaint liberally, thus considered the claims under both IDEA and § 1983.
12

On appeal, Luo challenges the dismissal, arguing that the alleged IDEA procedural 

violations resulted in the denial of a FAPE. See Appellant’s Br. at 63. A procedural 

violation may rise to the level of a denial of a FAPE if it “causes substantive harm to the 

child or his parents.” C.H. v. Cape Henlopen Sch. Dist., 606 F.3d 59, 66 (3d Cir. 2010). 

“[S]ubstantive harm occurs only if the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the 

procedural inadequacies (i) [i]mpeded the child’s right to a FAPE; (ii) significantly 

impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding 

the provision of a FAPE to the parent’s child; or (iii) caused a deprivation of the 

educational benefit.” Id. at 67. Luo maintained that “a sequence” of procedural 

violations, when viewed cumulatively, resulted in the denial of a FAPE. But he wholly 

failed to allege facts to support a viable claim of substantive harm. Thus, because these 

allegations were insufficient as a matter of law to hold the School District liable under 

IDEA, the District Court properly found the complaint did not state an IDEA claim and 

dismissed on that basis. 

Turning to his § 1983 claims, Luo alleged that the School District and O’Brien

violated his “liberty right to direct his child’s education” by (1) allowing O’Brien to twice 

observe B.L. in the classroom without parental consent, citing 34 C.F.R. § 300.310(b)(2); 

and (2) deciding to forego an updated assessment of B.L. as part of the reevaluation, and 

failing to communicate that decision to the parents. See ECF No. 1 at 18-20. It has long 

been recognized that parents have a constitutional right to control the education of their 
13

children. See C.N. v. Ridgewood Bd. of Educ., 430 F.3d 159, 182 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing 

cases). But that right is “neither absolute nor unqualified.” Id. 

As the Hearing Officer explained, § 300.310(b)(2) requires parental consent for an 

evaluation or reevaluation process itself; there is no regulation requiring parental consent 

for an observation alone, whether conducted as part of an evaluation or reevaluation. See

ECF No. 11-2 at 10 n.5. And although the regulations generally require notice to parents 

of their right to request an assessment to determine whether the child continues to be a 

child with a disability and the child’s educational needs, see 34 C.F.R. § 300.305, Luo 

does not allege how any procedural violation substantially interfered with his ability to 

control B.L.’s education. The reevaluation report, which was based in part on (1) 

O’Brien’s observations, (2) input from B.L.’s parents, staff at the educational placement, 

and related services providers, (3) “extensive and consistent assessment data from the 

prior re-evaluations,” and (4) the January 2021 IEP, recommended that B.L. continue to 

be identified as a student with ongoing (and long-established) disabilities.

13 ECF No. 14-

2 at 5-7 & n.5. Because there is no alleged conduct by either O’Brien or the School 

13 In his complaint, Luo made passing references to a “parent[al] concern” of a 

“suspected disability” which might have been assessed as part of the reevaluation. See

ECF No. 1 at 5, 16. He does not identify the nature of the suspected disability or how it

might impact B.L.’s ability to obtain a FAPE. In his decision, the Hearing Officer noted 

that Luo did not disagree with B.L.’s areas of suspected disability. See ECF No. 14-2 at 

10 n.5. During his closing argument at the due process hearing, Luo stated that “the 

evaluator did not assess the student’s all ‘suspected disabilities.’ Parent’s concern is a 

suspected disability.” Id. The Hearing Officer stated that “[a]side from these two lines in 

the closing statement, the entire record, and the rest of the closing statement itself, centers 

on procedural elements, not substantive elements, of the re-evaluation process.” Id.
14

District that would “shock the conscience” and thereby rise to the level of a constitutional 

violation, Luo’s § 1983 claims against them were properly dismissed. See Miller v. City 

of Philadelphia, 174 F.3d 368, 374-75 (3d Cir. 1999) (recognizing that to state a 

substantive due process claim under § 1983, the plaintiff must allege conduct by a 

government actor that “shocks the conscience”). 

Luo next alleged that Hearing Officer McElligott violated his “liberty right to 

direct his child’s education” by sua sponte ordering an IEE. We agree with the District 

Court that McElligott is entitled to absolute immunity because he was acting in a quasijudicial capacity in ordering the IEE. See Dotzel v. Ashbridge, 438 F.3d 320, 325 (3d 

Cir. 2006) (recognizing that a public official whose “role is ‘functionally comparable to 

that of a judge’” enjoys absolute immunity from suit); Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 

193, 200 (1985) (recognizing that hearing officers and administrative law judges “who

perform functions closely associated with the judicial process” are entitled to absolute 

immunity).

At the close of the due process hearing, the Hearing Officer determined that the 

evaluation process and reevaluation report were “both appropriate,” and that “both parties 

proceeded in good faith,” but that each party “misunderstood” the other’s position with 

respect to the need for “additional data-collection” (i.e., a new assessment). ECF No. 14-

2 at 11. Under these circumstances, the Hearing Officer ordered the School District to 
15

fund a comprehensive IEE, citing his authority under 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(d).14 Id. Luo 

argues that the Hearing Officer does not have authority to sua sponte order the IEE under 

§ 300.502(d) where the parent opposes it, and that he is therefore not entitled to 

immunity. But the Hearing Officer would lose the privilege of quasi-judicial immunity 

only if he acted “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 

349, 356-57 (1978). Even if the Hearing Officer’s action “was in error, was done 

maliciously, or was in excess of his authority,” he is entitled to absolute immunity for his 

judicial acts. Id. at 356; see also Figueroa v. Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435, 443 (3d Cir. 2000)

(explaining that a “judicial act” is one that is “normally performed by a judge”). The 

Hearing Officer had authority over the proceedings pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 300.511, and 

he acted within the scope of his jurisdiction in ordering the IEE as a remedy. Because he 

is therefore entitled to immunity, the claim against him was properly dismissed.

Finally, we agree with the District Court that all claims against the PDOE were 

subject to dismissal. Luo is correct that the PDOE is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment 

immunity from claims brought pursuant to the IDEA. See M.A. ex rel. E.S. v. StateOperated Sch. Dist. of City of Newark, 344 F.3d 335, 351 (3d Cir. 2003) (holding that a 

state’s acceptance of federal funds available under the IDEA is conditioned upon its 

waiver of sovereign immunity). But Luo’s claims against the PDOE were based on 

14 Section 300.502(d) provides: “Requests for evaluations by hearing officers. If a 

hearing officer requests an independent educational evaluation as part of a hearing on a 

due process complaint, the cost of the evaluation must be at public expense.” 
16

§ 1983, not the IDEA, and as an “arm of the state,” the PDOE is immune from such 

claims. See Fitchik v. N.J. Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 873 F.2d 655, 658 (3d Cir. 

1989) (noting that a state agency or department is an “arm of the state” when a judgment 

against it “would have had essentially the same practical consequences as a judgment 

against the State itself” (citation omitted)); see also Downey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 968 

F.3d 299, 310 (3d Cir. 2020) (noting that Pennsylvania has not waived the immunity 

defense and Congress has not abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity under § 1983).

Based on the foregoing, in C.A. No. 22-1636, we will affirm the District Court’s 

order entered March 21, 2022, to the extent that it dismissed the claims in E.D. Pa. Civ. 

No. 2:21-cv-05000 (Luo VII), and we will dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the remaining 

appeals taken in E.D. Pa. Civ. Nos. 2:14-cv-06354 (Luo I), 2:16-cv-06568 (Luo IV);

2:17-cv-01508 (Luo V); and 2:21-cv-01098 (Luo VI). We are mindful that the latter 

cases have been pending for years, but we are confident that the proceedings in the 

District Court will resume forthwith and will conclude without unnecessary delay.15

15 Appellee Gerl’s motion to supplement the appendix is granted. Appellant’s Motion to 

Collaterally Attack and Strike the District Court’s Orders is denied.