Turner v. Tierney
Filing
96
ORDER CERTIFYING APPEAL NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH; REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK. The Court finds Turner's petition lacks arguable substance in law and fact, and, consequently, is frivolous. Accordingly, Turner's in forma pauperis status is revoked. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 13, 2015. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
STEPHEN B. TURNER,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
No. C 12-6231 MMC
ORDER CERTIFYING APPEAL NOT
TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH; REVOKING IN
FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS;
DIRECTIONS TO CLERK
v.
DUSTIN TIERNEY,
Defendant.
/
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Before the Court is a Referral Notice issued to this Court by the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, referring the above-titled matter for the limited purpose of
determining whether plaintiff-appellant Stephen B. Turner’s (“Turner”) in forma pauperis
status should continue or be revoked. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (providing “[a]n appeal
may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in
good faith”); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962) (holding “‘good faith’ . . .
must be judged by an objective standard”; noting “good faith” is demonstrated when
appellant seeks review “of any issue not frivolous”). Having reviewed the file and
considered the matter, the Court rules as follows.
By order filed January 3, 2014, the Court, having been advised that the parties had
settled the above-titled action, issued a conditional order of dismissal, by which the Court
dismissed the action without prejudice and provided that if any party thereto certified to the
1
Court within 180 days that the agreed consideration had not been delivered, the order
2
would stand vacated and the action would be restored to the calendar. (See Order of
3
Dismissal, filed Jan. 3, 2014.) On October 20, 2014, Turner filed two motions, a “Request
4
to Vacate the January 3, 2014 Order of Dismissal as Settlement Has Not Executed” and a
5
“Motion to Modify Settlement Agreement.” By order filed November 17, 2014, the Court
6
denied both motions as untimely, pointing out the time limitations provided in the
7
conditional order of dismissal and noting the motions were filed “more than nine months”
8
after its entry. (See Order, filed Nov. 17, 2014 at 1-2.)
In his Petition for Writ of Mandamus, construed by the Ninth Circuit as a notice of
9
10
appeal, Turner contends the Court’s November 17, 2014 order was clearly erroneous
11
because “F.R.C.P. 60(c) allows up to one year to vacate an order,”1 and because “the
12
federal settlement agreement in the underlying case is illegal.” (See Petition, filed Nov. 19,
13
2014 at 7-8.) As set forth below, the Court finds Turner’s petition lacks arguable substance
14
in law and fact, and, consequently, is frivolous. See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,
15
1227 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding appeal is frivolous if it lacks “arguable substance in law and
16
fact”).
17
At the outset, the Court observes that Turner never challenged the Court’s
18
conditional order of dismissal which, by Turner’s “own inaction,” became final as of July 3,
19
2014. See Choy v. Butler’s, Inc., 304 F.2d 524 (1962) (affirming dismissal following entry
20
of conditional order of dismissal; noting defendant’s failure to seek to reopen within time
21
provided “permitted the order of dismissal to become final”).
22
Next, even construing the motions as having been brought under Rule 60, they are
23
untimely. A party seeking relief under Rule 60(b) must file his motion “within a reasonable
24
time.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Here, by his own admission, Turner, as of “mid-
25
January 2014,” (see Mot. to Modify Settlement Agrmt. at 3:7), was aware of the reasons
26
1
27
28
Pursuant to Rule 60(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] motion under
Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time–and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no
more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.”
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
2
1
the settlement had not been executed, but did not file his motions until October 20, 2014,
2
more than nine months after he became aware of those grounds and more than three
3
months after the Court’s order of dismissal had become final.
4
Lastly, irrespective of their timeliness, the motions clearly lack merit. Under the
5
terms of the subject settlement, as described by Turner, the defendant agreed to pay to
6
Turner the sum of $3000 and Turner agreed to pay to the State of California the balance of
7
the restitution he owed, a sum of approximately $1700 (see Mot. to Vacate at 2:6-8). In
8
support of both motions, Turner argued that after he was discharged from parole, the
9
defendant lost jurisdiction to collect restitution from him, and, consequently, that he is
10
entitled to a modification by which his obligation to make such payment is removed from
11
the settlement. As defendant pointed out, however, any alteration of Turner’s parole status
12
has no bearing on Turner’s obligation to make restitution to the state (see Opp’n to Mot. to
13
Modify at 3-4), and, in any event, Turner has cited no authority, and the Court is aware of
14
none, by which a party who, as here, subsequently becomes dissatisfied with the terms of a
15
settlement or other contract is relieved of his obligations thereunder.
16
Accordingly, Turner’s in forma pauperis status is hereby REVOKED.
17
The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order on the United States Court of Appeals for
18
19
the Ninth Circuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
Dated: March 13, 2015
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?