Joe Thorpe v. Salisbury Township, Pa, Debra J. Brinton, Donald B. Brinton, Sandy Nicolo, Michael…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.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 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 08/05/2022

-- 1 of 3 --

THORPE v. SALISBURY TOWNSHIP, PA 2
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.
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
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 juris-
diction. 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 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 08/05/2022

-- 2 of 3 --

THORPE 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 appro-
priate court. 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Although responding ap-
pellees urge dismissal because the district court dismissed
some of Mr. Thorpe’s claims without prejudice and permit-
ted him to amend his complaints, we deem it the better
course to transfer to the Third Circuit for that court to ad-
dress those issues.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, these appeals and all fil-
ings are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.
August 5, 2022
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 22-1698 Document: 50 Page: 3 Filed: 08/05/2022

-- 3 of 3 --