Harper v. Trumbull
Filing
78
ORDER RE: DOCUMENTS FILED ON MAY 11, 2017. The motions 72 , 74 are DENIED. The Judgment 76 is STRICKEN. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 5/12/2017. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
8
PAUL A. HARPER,
Case No. 5:07-cv-04191-RMW (EJD)
Plaintiff,
9
ORDER RE: DOCUMENTS FILED ON
MAY 11, 2017
v.
10
11
PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 72-77
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendant.
12
13
Plaintiff Paul A. Harper (“Plaintiff”), proceeding in propia persona, filed a series of
14
documents on May 11, 2017, in this dismissed, closed action, including: (1) a “Notice of Motion
15
and Motion Settlement Mediation” and supporting declaration (Dkt. Nos. 72, 73); (2) a “Notice of
16
Motion and Motion Settlement Mediation Questionnaire” (Dkt. No. 74); (3) a proposed order on a
17
settlement motion (Dkt. No. 75); (4) a purported “judgment” (Dkt. No. 76); and (5) a purported
18
order permitting Plaintiff to proceed without paying fees and costs (Dkt. No. 77). These matters
19
have been referred to the undersigned for general duty review upon the retirement of Judge Ronald
20
M. Whyte.
21
The purpose of these documents is unclear. What is apparent, however, is they have no
22
effect because nothing is pending to which they could apply. Notably, this action was dismissed
23
without prejudice on October 9, 2007, after Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee. Dkt. No. 17.
24
Plaintiff’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 21,
25
2010, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). Dkt. No. 25. Judge Whyte then
26
issued orders denying Plaintiff’s motions seeking fees and costs (Dkt. Nos. 28, 55). Plaintiff
27
appealed from the second fees order, which proceeding the Ninth Circuit dismissed as frivolous on
28
1
Case No.: 5:07-cv-04191-RMW
ORDER RE: DOCUMENTS FILED ON MAY 11, 2017
1
April 18, 2017. Dkt. No. 71. No issues were remanded to the district court, nor is there any need
2
for post-appeal proceedings related to settlement.
Moreover, Plaintiff cannot receive fees or costs. As previously explained by Judge Whyte,
3
4
judgment was entered against Plaintiff on October 9, 2007, and that judgment has not been
5
disturbed. Dkt. No. 18. Filing a new judgment does not change that fact. Consequently, Plaintiff
6
is still not the prevailing party and cannot recover costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
7
54(d).
8
9
The motions filed on May 11, 2017 (Dkt. Nos. 72, 74) are DENIED. The Judgment filed
that same date (Dkt. No. 76) is STRICKEN.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 12, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 5:07-cv-04191-RMW
ORDER RE: DOCUMENTS FILED ON MAY 11, 2017
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?