THORPE v. SALISBURY TOWNSHIP, PA , No. 22-1698 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-1698 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 08/05/2022 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ JOE THORPE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SALISBURY TOWNSHIP, PA, DEBRA J. BRINTON, DONALD B. BRINTON, SANDY NICOLO, MICHAEL J. POCHRON, JAMES R. SUHOCKI, MEGAN C. HOUCK, aka Megan Suhocki, GREGORY M. REIHMAN, MICHAEL J. MILKOVITZ, JOELLE MILKOVITZ, JOHN ASHLEY, DANIEL SELL, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2022-1698 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in No. 5:21-cv-02102-JFL, Judge Joseph Francis Leeson, Jr. ------------------------------------------------JOE THORPE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SALISBURY TOWNSHIP, PA, DEBRA J. BRINTON, SANDY NICOLO, MICHAEL J. POCHRON, DANIEL Case: 22-1698 2 Document: 50 Page: 2 THORPE Filed: 08/05/2022 v. SALISBURY TOWNSHIP, PA SELL, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2022-1708 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in No. 5:21-cv-04261-JFL, Judge Joseph Francis Leeson, Jr. ______________________ PER CURIAM. ORDER Joe Thorpe seeks review of orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the two underlying civil rights cases that denied Mr. Thorpe’s motion for an injunction and dismissed his claims. On May 27, 2022, this court directed the parties to show cause as to why the appeals should not be dismissed or transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Mr. Thorpe and appellee Michael J. Pochron have not responded. The remaining appellees (collectively, “responding appellees”) submit informal response briefs urging dismissal of the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. These appeals are outside this court’s appellate jurisdiction. This court possesses jurisdiction over only certain appeals from federal district courts, including cases arising under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1), 1295(a)(4)(C), and certain cases against the United States for claims “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2). None of these apply to Mr. Thorpe’s appeals. And Mr. Thorpe’s opening briefs, which he filed prior to the issuance of our show cause order, do not address this court’s jurisdiction over these appeals. Case: 22-1698 THORPE Document: 50 Page: 3 Filed: 08/05/2022 v. SALISBURY TOWNSHIP, PA 3 When this court lacks jurisdiction, it may, “if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such . . . appeal[s]” to the appropriate court. 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Although responding appellees urge dismissal because the district court dismissed some of Mr. Thorpe’s claims without prejudice and permitted him to amend his complaints, we deem it the better course to transfer to the Third Circuit for that court to address those issues. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, these appeals and all filings are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. FOR THE COURT August 5, 2022 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
