District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, 2026

Paul-Anthony Cononie v. Thomas P. Caulfield, et al.

Paul-Anthony Cononie v. Thomas P. Caulfield, et al.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Decided February 12, 2026
Paul-Anthony Cononie v. Thomas P. Caulfield, et al.

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PAUL-ANTHONY CONONIE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 25-cv-01447 ) THOMAS P. CAULFIELD, et. al, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Paul Connie’s Motion to Recuse Judge Marilyn Horan. ECF No. 51. Mr. Cononie primarily bases his Motion upon the Order of Court filed on January 20, 2026. That Order denied three of Mr. Cononie’s Motions to Compel1 and granted Allegheny County Sheriff’s Office and Deputy Tyler McAllister’s “Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Pleading #41.”

Mr. Cononie has also filed an interlocutory appeal from the same January 20, 2026 Order. ECF No. 55. That interlocutory appeal is presently before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. This pending appeal impacts this court’s jurisdiction to act upon the Motion to Recuse at this time. “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982).

This Court concludes that the matters involved in Mr. Cononie’s pending interlocutory appeal of the January 20, 2026 Order are sufficiently related to the Motion to Recuse that ruling Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 42), Motion to Compel [Compliance with a Subpoena Duces Tecum] (ECF No. 48), and Motion to Compel – Related Material of the Police Report (ECF No. 49). on the recusal motion, during the pendency of the appeal, may result in piecemeal litigation and/or inconsistent outcomes.

Accordingly, jurisdiction over the matters identified above is presently vested in the Third Circuit. As such, at this time, this Court denies Mr. Cononie’s Motion to Recuse, for lack of jurisdiction.

AND NOW, on this 12th day of February 2026, Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse Judge Marilyn Horan, ECF No. 5, is DENIED, without prejudice, due to lack of present jurisdiction. __s/Marilyn J. Horan__________ Marilyn J. Horan United States District Court Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.