Dingle v. Vosper

Second Circuit

Dingle v. Vosper

112 F. App'x 793

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 18, 2004

DocketDocket No. 03-0263

StatusPublished

This text of 112 F. App'x 793 (Dingle v. Vosper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dingle v. Vosper, 112 F. App'x 793 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[794]*794SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Charles A. Dingle, proceeding pro se, appeals from the September 22, 2003 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Lawrence E. Kahn, Judge) dismissing the case as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Familiarity with the facts and proceedings before the district court is assumed.

On appeal, Dingle claims that he properly served defendant-appellee Robert N. Vosper within the statutory period, but does not indicate the date or place of such service. Without explanation, he also argues that equitable tolling is appropriate.

In a related case, we recently reversed the district court’s dismissal of Dingle’s claims against Vosper and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Dingle v. Portuondo, No. 03-0206 (2d Cir. Oct. 14, 2004). Because the claims remanded to the district court are identical to those raised in this case, we conclude the instant appeal is moot. See SEC v. Monarch Funding Corp., 192 F.3d 295, 303 (2d Cir.1999) (noting that “an action which promises to merely duplicate the relief afforded by prior proceedings may, indeed, be non-justiciable”). Dingle may, of course, continue his litigation against Vosper in his related, live proceeding.

Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, the appeal from the judgment of the district court is hereby DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[794]*794SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Charles A. Dingle, proceeding pro se, appeals from the September 22, 2003 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Lawrence E. Kahn, Judge) dismissing the case as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Familiarity with the facts and proceedings before the district court is assumed.

On appeal, Dingle claims that he properly served defendant-appellee Robert N. Vosper within the statutory period, but does not indicate the date or place of such service. Without explanation, he also argues that equitable tolling is appropriate.

In a related case, we recently reversed the district court’s dismissal of Dingle’s claims against Vosper and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Dingle v. Portuondo, No. 03-0206 (2d Cir. Oct. 14, 2004). Because the claims remanded to the district court are identical to those raised in this case, we conclude the instant appeal is moot. See SEC v. Monarch Funding Corp., 192 F.3d 295, 303 (2d Cir.1999) (noting that “an action which promises to merely duplicate the relief afforded by prior proceedings may, indeed, be non-justiciable”). Dingle may, of course, continue his litigation against Vosper in his related, live proceeding.

Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, the appeal from the judgment of the district court is hereby DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 F. App'x 793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dingle-v-vosper-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack