Arthur Thompson v. FBI, et al
| ARTHUR THOMPSON |
| FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, JUDGE SHANESE I. JOHNSON, ESQ. ROBERT GOGGIN, A.D.A., COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA GUN TASK FORCE, PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, ROBERT M. GAMBURG, ZACHARY C. SHAFFER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA and PHILADELPHIA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS |
| 25-1696 |
| April 14, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 4, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
ORDER (BIBAS, PORTER and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges) This appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. With exceptions not relevant here, this Court has appellate jurisdiction only over final decisions of the District Courts. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; Berckeley Inv. Grp., Ltd. v. Colkitt, 259 F.3d 135, 139-40 (3d Cir. 2001). A final decision is one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. Papotto v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 731 F.3d 265, 269 (3d Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). An order that dismisses a complaint without prejudice generally does not qualify as a final order unless the plaintiff cannot amend or declares his intention to stand on his complaint. Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1976) (per curiam). Here, the District Court dismissed Appellants complaint without prejudice as to certain claims and granted him leave to file an amendment addressing the deficiencies it identified. He immediately appealed, but in his notice of appeal he expressly seeks leave to amend. Appellants filing does not reflect an intent to stand on his original pleading, therefore this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the instant appeal. Our dismissal is without prejudice to Appellants ability to seek leave in the District Court to file an amended complaint.. Panel No.: ALD-179. Montgomery-Reeves, Authoring Judge. (SB) [Entered: 08/04/2025 03:41 PM]
|
| Filing 5 Brief Received. As no briefing schedule has yet issued, the brief is construed as a document in support of the appeal. If after disposition of the pending motions the appeal is to proceed to briefing, the parties will be advised regarding the filing date of this brief and the date for filing a responsive brief. Certificate of Service dated 04/25/2025. Service made by hand delivery. (SB) [Entered: 04/29/2025 11:51 AM] |
| Filing 4 LEGAL DIVISION LETTER SENT advising that the case has been listed for possible dismissal due to jurisdictional defect. (NF) [Entered: 04/17/2025 04:41 PM] |
| Filing 3 NOTICE Pursuant to 3d Cir. L.A.R. 26.1, a document is timely filed if received by 5:00 p.m. ET on the last day for filing unless the Court sets a different time, the document has been submitted by an inmate pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A)(iii), or otherwise specified in L.A.R. 26.1 (SB) [Entered: 04/14/2025 09:35 AM] |
| Filing 2 RECORD available on District Court CM/ECF. (SB) [Entered: 04/14/2025 09:34 AM] |
| Filing 1 CIVIL CASE DOCKETED. Notice filed by Appellant Arthur Thompson in District Court No. 2:25-cv-01095. (SB) [Entered: 04/14/2025 09:32 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
