REDMAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

• Court: District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: April 25, 2023
• Docket: 1:21-cv-00124
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DEBORAH A. REDMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 21-124E ) v. ) Judge Cathy Bissoon ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Plaintiff’s “Notice to Reopen Case and Assign to Neutral Judge” (Doc. 71) is construed as a Motion to Reopen, and it will be denied. Plaintiff’s filing at Doc. 69 was titled a “Notice of Inability to Continue to Participate in Any Way in This Proceeding,” and the sum total of its contents read: Due to the Court’s and Defendant IRS’s actions, Plaintiff Dr. Deborah A. Redman comes now and gives notice that she can no longer continue to participate in any way in this proceeding.

Doc. 69. The notice was clear and unambiguous. See Gorton v. Gardner Denver, Inc., 2022 WL 7579808, *6 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2022) (under Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), clarity and lack of ambiguity are the controlling standards). On its filing, the Notice effectively dismissed the case, and the Court now lacks jurisdiction to decide the merits. In re Bath & Kitchen Fixtures Antitrust Litig., 535 F.3d 161, 166 (3d Cir. 2008). Under the circumstances, Plaintiff’s request to reassign the case to a different judge is moot. Even were it not, Plaintiff’s request − in essence − is one for recusal, and no legitimate grounds have been identified. Disagreement with the undersigned’s rulings does not suffice. Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2000). Consistent with the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen (Doc. 71) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 25, 2023 s/Cathy Bissoon Cathy Bissoon United States District Judge

cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail):

Deborah A. Redman 17952 Cussewago Rd. Meadville, PA 16335

cc (via ECF email notification):

All Counsel Currently of Record