Jones v. St. Louis County, Missouri

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION KAREN JONES, ) Plaintiff, v. No. 4:23-cv-00594-JAR ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, Defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Karen Jones’s motion seeking to remove from the docket sheet any reference to three prior cases that she has filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. (Docket No. 8). For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be denied. Background Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who filed a civil action against St. Louis County, Missouri, on May 4, 2023. (Docket No. 1). In the complaint, plaintiff asked the Court to vacate a full order of protection that had been granted against her. Along with the complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket No. 2). On July 11, 2023, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and reviewed her case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Docket No. 5). Based on that review, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. (Docket No. 6). On July 18, 2023, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (Docket No. 7). On the same day, she filed the instant motion. (Docket No. 8).

The Motion In her motion, plaintiff requests that the Court “remove 3 cases listed in [her] requested motion...because neither is related, similar, or substantially equivalent to any previous[ly] filed case.” (Docket No. 8 at 1). She asserts that the instant case “is the 1“' time this case was filed and no parties or entities are listed in the pending case.” As best the Court can tell, plaintiff is referring to the docket sheet entry where plaintiff's previously-filed cases are listed. Plaintiff wants these references “removed from this case file because it is bias.” She further notes that when she initially filed this case, she answered “no” to the question as to whether the instant case had been filed before. Discussion “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). 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 Cir. 1996). Here, the Court has determined that entertaining plaintiff's motion would not undermine or alter the issues before the appellate court. Having made that determination, the Court has reviewed plaintiff's motion, and finds that it is without merit. The docket entry with plaintiff's prior cases accurately reflects plaintiffs filing history, and there is no suggestion otherwise. Therefore, the motion is denied. Accordingly,

Zz

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (Docket No. 8) is DENIED. Dated this 24" day of July, 2023.

4p Af ‘hoe JO . ROSS ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE