Thomas et al v. Correa

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO STOP FILING USING THIS CASE NUMBER. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 29, 2009. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/30/2009: # 1 Certificate of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. AIDA CORREA, Defendant. / ALFRED T. THOMAS, Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO STOP FILING USING THIS CASE NUMBER No. C 09-02764 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

Plaintiff Randy L. Thomas, acting pro se, filed two documents in this district on behalf of himself and his minor son, Alfred T. Thomas, including a "petition & motion of respondent No. 2 for removal to U.S. District Court" and a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus." The documents challenged an order issued by Moore County Superior Court in North Carolina in a dispute between plaintiff and defendant Aida Correa regarding the custody of Alfred Thomas. The Clerk inadvertently docketed both filings under the above-captioned case number instead of in an already-existing case in this district regarding the same dispute that was assigned to Magistrate Judge Chen. See C. 09-1487(EMC). On July 7, 2009, an order interpreted plaintiff's filings in the above-captioned case number as attempts at amendment in the action before Magistrate Judge Chen. The Clerk was ordered to close the above-captioned case number and refile plaintiff's submissions in Case No. 09-1487(EMC). Magistrate Judge Chen considered the merits of plaintiff's submissions and dismissed them with prejudice on July 10, 2009. Plaintiff subsequently filed a "motion for leave for ECF" and a "motion for emergency relief -- temporary custody" using the above-captioned case number, notwithstanding the fact that it was closed. These appeared to be attempts to relitigate the same issues that had already

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

been dismissed with prejudice by Judge Chen. Because the above-captioned case number was closed and had only been opened in the first place due to error, an October 25 order directed the Clerk to refile these new documents in the matter before Magistrate Judge Chen. Now plaintiff has filed yet another submission using the above-captioned case number entitled "Notice of Appeal." It appears to be a request directed to the undersigned for reconsideration of the orders to close this matter and refile plaintiff's four earlier submissions in the matter before Magistrate Judge Chen. Reconsideration is DENIED. Plaintiff's motions have already been dismissed on the merits with prejudice by Magistrate Judge Chen. Plaintiff cannot relitigate them now merely because initially they were inadvertently docketed in the abovecaptioned case number. The above-captioned case number is closed and plaintiff is ORDERED to stop filing submissions using it.

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 2 Dated: December 29, 2009. IT IS SO ORDERED.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE