Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Deshazer v. Rabern

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION


May 15, 2009

TIMOTHY J. DESHAZER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TRACE L. RABERN, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Timothy J. DeShazer's "Motion to Order [the] American Government Authority to provide opportunity for the appropriate parties to create a documentary in an audio/visual medium of the recent pretrial detention of Ali [Al-Marri]." For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES this Motion [#15].

Background

On April 2, 2009, this Court entered an Order and Judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction over an action involving Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with his attorney's legal representation. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on April 15, 2009.

Plaintiff now seeks an Order by this Court to allow "appropriate parties" to create a documentary regarding the pre-trial detention of Ali Al-Marri, an individual who recently pled guilty to one count of conspiring with others to aid Al-Qaida. Plaintiff argues that the pre-trial detention of Ali Al-Marri differs from that of a "typical American."

DISCUSSION

The Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint because it found that Plaintiff failed to explain why it had jurisdiction over his cause of action. "Subject-matter jurisdiction is so central to the district court's power to issue any orders whatsoever that it may be inquired into at any time, with or without a motion, by any party or by the court itself." Craig v. Ontario Corp., 543 F.3d 872, 875 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, as the Court found it lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff's action, the Court would lack jurisdiction over this Motion.

In addition, as Plaintiff has filed an appeal in this case in the Seventh Circuit, this Court would lack jurisdiction to entertain this motion, as only one court can have jurisdiction at a time. See Aaron v. Mahl, 550 F.3d 659, 667 (7th Cir. 2008) ([g]enerally, a party's filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court DENIES DeShazer's Motion [#15].

ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2009.

20090515

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.