Filing 2

ORDER Re Stefan Ricardo Mahaley's Declaration. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 7/5/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jao)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

In re STEFAN RICARDO
MAHALEY

Case No.: 3:17-MC-00333

ORDER RE STEFAN RICARDO
MAHALEY'S DECLARATION

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

On March 10, 2017 this Court received a document from Stefan Ricardo
Mahaley entitled “DECLARATION-OF-RESERVATION-OF-RIGHTS”
(“Declaration”), a miscellaneous filing not related to any current civil or criminal
case in this district. The Declaration was notarized on March 1, 2017 in
Tallahatchie Country, Mississippi. Mr. Mahaley paid the filing fee of $47.00 for
miscellaneous papers by check to the Clerk’s office on March 10, 2017. For the
reasons stated below, the Declaration is REJECTED and Mr. Mahaley will NOT
be issued a refund.

24
25
26
27

I. THERE IS NO “CASE OR CONTROVERSY”:
Article III, §2 of the U.S. Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal
courts to “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, §2, cl.1. In the instant

28
1
3:17-MC-00333

1

matter, there is no present injury, case or controversy to which the filing relates.

2

Mr. Mahaley has simply submitted the Declaration to the Clerk to be retained by

3

this Court. Without any sort of cognizable injury, case or controversy, the Court

4

has no jurisdiction.

5
6

II. COURT NOT A PUBLIC FILE REPOSITORY:

7

The Court’s docket was never meant to be a public file repository. Other

8

federal courts have held that petitioners must show an adequate basis to open

9

and maintain a miscellaneous case. See In re Atchison-Jorgan, No. 12-MC-

10

50879, 2014 WL 1516218, at *1 (E.D. Mich, Apr. 17, 2014); see also Kerman-

11

Ray of House of Carr v. Martinez, No. 15-MC-00045-GPG, 2015 WL 1577623, at

12

*2 (D. Colo. Apr. 2, 2015). Mr. Mahaley is not attempting to commence a civil

13

action, as he did not file a complaint as required by Federal Rule of Civil

14

Procedure 3, nor does he suggest that he is seeking any relief from the Court.

15

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. It appears that Mr. Mahaley is attempting to give his

16

Declaration some sort of legal effect by creating a public miscellaneous file with

17

the docket of this Court. Mr. Mahaley is not entitled to “utilize the court as a

18

record-keeping system.” Robinson v. Court Clerks, E. Dist. of California,

19

Sacramento, No. CIV 11-2679 JAM EFB, 2012 WL 219147, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan.

20

24, 2012). Since he has not shown an adequate basis to maintain a

21

miscellaneous case, this Court now rejects the filing.

22
23

III. NO REFUND OF FILING FEES:
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts’ Guide to Judiciary Policy (the

24

“Guide”) states that filing fee refunds are generally prohibited “even if a party filed

25

the case in error or the court dismissed the case or proceeding.” Guide to

26

Judiciary Policy, Vol. 4, Ch. 6, § 650.10, available at http://jnet.ao.dcn/policy-

27

guidance/guide-judiciary-policy/volume-4-court-and-case-administration/ch-6-

28

fees. The only limited refund authority afforded to the courts is in situations
2
3:17-MC-00333

1

where “errors in electronic payments are made,” specifically when erroneous or

2

duplicate payments are made online. Id. § 650.20(a). Mr. Mahaley did not make

3

his payment electronically.

4

The Guide is of persuasive authority as it codifies the policies promulgated

5

by the Director of the Administrative Office and “approved by the Judicial

6

Conference of the United States.” In re Sony BMG Music Entm’t, 564 F.3d 1, 7

7

(1st Cir. 2009); see also Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 388 F. Supp. 2d 484,

8

486-87 (M.D. Pa. 2005). It is the “official medium by which direction as to

9

courtroom procedures and other information are provided to the Federal

10

Judiciary in support of its day-to-day operations.” In re Sony, 564 F.3d at 7

11

(quoting Kitzmiller, 388 F. Supp. at 486-87). The Court sees no reason it should

12

go against the procedures contained in the Guide in the present matter.

13

Therefore, even though the Court rejects the Declaration, Mr. Mahaley’s filing fee

14

will not be refunded.
III. CONCLUSION

15
16

For the reasons discussed above, the Declaration is REJECTED and shall

17

be stricken, and Mr. Mahaley will NOT be issued a refund.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: July 5, 2017

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
3:17-MC-00333