Williams v. Potter

Filing 96

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF. Upon review, the Court does not find good cause to vacate Plaintiff's settlement, as the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the district court's order denying Plaintiff's motion for relief from the settlement. Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff's contentions that she has been taken advantage of by court officials are unfounded. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Administrative Relief. Signed by Judge James Ware on 3/21/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2011)

Williams v. Potter

Doc. 96

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Katherine Williams, Plaintiff, v.
For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 08-00026 WHA ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

United States District Court

11 12

John E. Potter, Postmaster General, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 that the Court should strike down or vacate Plaintiff's decision to settle her case, because she settled 17 under duress. Plaintiff further contends that she has been taken advantage of by court officials. 18 On March 19, 2009, Judge Alsup issued an Order Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Relief 19 from Settlement. (See Docket Item No. 78.) In that Order, the court found that Plaintiff had 20 "entered a voluntary, valid, binding agreement to settle all claims." (Id. at 2.) On May 4, 2009, 21 Judge Alsup issued an Order Denying Plaintiff's Second Request for Relief from Settlement. (See 22 Docket Item No. 81.) In that Order, the court found that Plaintiff had raised no new arguments 23 regarding the settlement. (Id. at 1.) On July 2, 2010, Plaintiff appealed the denial of relief from 24 settlement to the Ninth Circuit. (See Docket Item No. 86.) On August 24, 2010, the Ninth Circuit 25 affirmed the district court's order denying Plaintiff's motion for relief from the settlement. (See 26 27 28 In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court liberally construes Plaintiff's March 7, 2011 letter to the Court as a Motion.
1

/ Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Administrative Relief.1 Plaintiff contends

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Docket Item No. 90.) On October 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. (See Docket Item No. 93.) On December 13, 2010, the United States Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition for a writ of certiorari. (See Docket Item No. 94.) Upon review, the Court does not find good cause to vacate Plaintiff's settlement, as the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the district court's order denying Plaintiff's motion for relief from the settlement. Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff's contentions that she has been taken advantage of by court officials are unfounded. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Administrative Relief.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

Dated: March 21, 2011 JAMES WARE United States District Chief Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

1 2 3 4 5

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Abraham A. Simmons [e-mail] Katherine Williams 445 Fordham Circle Vallejo, CA 94589 Dated: March 21, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

6 7 8 9 10

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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