Napier v. United States of America

Filing 108

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 106 Motion to Vacate the Judgment signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 02/24/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DENNIS NAPIER,

8
9
10
11

Petitioner,
v.

1:10-cv-00040 LJO GSA
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT
(DOC. 106).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

12
13

Petitioner Dennis Napier once again moves to vacate the judgment in this case regarding

14

disposition of firearms seized from Mr. Napier’s residence. See Doc. 106, filed Feb. 6, 2012. A

15

January 5, 2012 order confirmed a December 6, 2011 Order, which confirmed a October 27, 2011

16

Order, which confirmed yet another September 30, 2011 Order allowing certain firearms to be

17
18
19
20

destroyed and others to be sold at auction with proceeds remitting to Mr. Napier. Docs. 93, 94,
97, & 104.
The procedural history of this case has been detailed in numerous prior orders, and was

21

summarized in the December 6, 2011 Order. See Docs. 87, 93, 97. In sum, this Court determined

22

that, because of a 1993 state conviction, Mr. Napier is currently subject to a firearms prohibition,

23
24

despite a 2003 Superior Court Order purporting to reduce the 1993 conviction to a misdemeanor.
Because the 2003 Superior Court Order created some confusion over whether and to what extent

25
26

the firearms prohibition continued after 2003, the district court, acting pursuant to its equitable

27

jurisdiction, sought to determine whether it would be possible and/or appropriate for the Bureau

28

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“BATF”) to sell some or all of the seized
1

1

firearms at auction with the proceeds remitting to Mr. Napier. The district court analyzed both

2

parties’ submissions on sale at auction and issued a detailed decision regarding disposition of the

3

firearms. See Doc. 87. At Mr. Napier’s request, disposition was stayed until November 27, 2011

4
to allow Mr. Napier an opportunity to file an appeal. See Docs. 93, 94. The stay automatically
5
6

expired on November 27, 2011. Id. The December 6, 2011 Order denied Mr. Napier’s request

7

for additional time to file an appeal, because Mr. Napier had more than sufficient opportunity to

8

pursue appellate remedies. Doc. 97. The Clerk of Court was directed to and did enter judgment

9

for the United States and against Mr. Napier. Docs. 97& 98. On December 20, 2011, Mr. Napier

10

filed yet another motion for reconsideration. That motion was denied, as it failed to satisfy the

11

requirements of either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or 60. Doc. 104.

12
13
14

On February 6, 2012, Mr. Napier moved to vacate the judgment, raising arguments that
have all been heard and addressed numerous times. Doc. 106. Among other things, Mr. Napier

15

argues that the state court has jurisdiction over the question of whether he has a right to possess a

16

firearm. Mr. Napier also maintains that the previously assigned district judge led him to believe

17

that he should appeal his firearms restriction in the state court. These are no revelations. This

18
19

Court has repeatedly implored Mr. Napier to pursue any available remedies in the state system
and has afforded multiple continuances to permit him to pursue any such remedies. See Doc. 71,

20
21

Memorandum Decision Denying Petitioner’s Motion for New Trial and Motion to Vacate

22

Judgment, at 6 (describing past efforts to permit Mr. Napier to appeal to the state court and again

23

imploring that he do so), filed June 22, 2011. Mr. Napier has made no effort to address his

24

firearms prohibition with the state court, despite having had ample opportunity to do so. Mr.

25

Napier’s continued inaction cannot now be used as an excuse to further delay the ultimate

26

disposition of this case.

27
28
2

1

The motion to vacate the judgment is DENIED. Given Petitioner’s repeated filing of

2

motions based upon the same factual and legal arguments, any further motions to vacate and/or

3

for reconsideration will be stricken. Mr. Napier is informed that further “multiplication of the

4

proceedings” is subject to sanction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1927; Wages v. IRS, 915 F.2d 1230, 1235-36

5
6

(9th Cir. 1989) (applying § 1927 sanctions to pro se plaintiff).

7
8

SO ORDERED
Dated: February 24, 2012

9

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3