Shimizu v. Ochiai

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S JULY 28, 2022 MOTION (ECF No. 26 ) - Signed by SENIOR JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 8/1/2022. Plaintiff's July 28, 2022 Motion (ECF No. 26 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff is warned that further frivolous filings may result in sanctions and/or an order finding Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. See Mather v. First Hawaiian Bank, 2014 WL 6775270, *3 (D. Haw. 2014) (citing Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 20 07)). (jo)COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Pro Se (Non-Prisoner) Litigants that have consented to receive documents and Notices of Electronic Filings by email, have been served electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
DEAN E. OCHIAI, Individually
)
and in his Official Capacity as )
Judge of the Circuit Court of
)
the First Circuit State of
)
Hawaii,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
RIKA SHIMIZU,

Civ. No. 21-00370 HG-KJM

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S JULY 28, 2022 MOTION (ECF No. 26)
On November 24, 2021, the Court issued Judgment in favor of
the Defendant.

(ECF No. 15).

On December 22, 2021, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a
Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.
(ECF No. 16).
On January 5, 2022, the Court issued an Order denying
Plaintiff’s Motion.

(ECF No. 17).

On February 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which remains pending.
No. 18).

(ECF

On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60 and 62.1.
1

(ECF No. 24).

On June 28, 2022, the Court issued an Order denying
Plaintiff’s June 24, 2022 Motion for lack of jurisdiction.

(ECF

No. 25).
On July 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed another Motion entitled
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of
Appeal.”

(ECF No. 26).

Here, there is no basis for Plaintiff to appeal the Court’s
June 28, 2022 order.

Plaintiff has already appealed this matter

to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and it remains pending
there.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A),
a party must demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause for the
District Court to extend the time to file a notice of appeal.
Neither excusable neglect nor good cause is present.

Any attempt

to appeal the Court’s June 28, 2022 is frivolous as there is no
arguable basis in law or fact to challenge the order.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

Neitzke v.

As explained in the June 28,

2022 order, the case is already on appeal before the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals and no further action can be taken by
the District Court.

The District Court was divested of

jurisdiction over the case once Plaintiff filed her notice of
appeal on February 4, 2022.

Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Sw.

Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff’s July 28, 2022 Motion (ECF No. 26) is DENIED.

2

Plaintiff is warned that further frivolous filings may
result in sanctions and/or an order finding Plaintiff is a
vexatious litigant.

See Mather v. First Hawaiian Bank, 2014 WL

6775270, *3 (D. Haw. 2014) (citing Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty
Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 1, 2022.

Rika Shimizu v. Dean E. Ochiai, individually and in his official
capacity as Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit,
State of Hawaii, Civ. No. 21-00370 HG-KJM; ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S JULY 28, 2022 MOTION (ECF No. 26)
3