Hralima v. Prison Health Services et al

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 13 Motion for Writ of Mandamus. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court SHALL FILE AND DOCKET the finance receipt showing that plaintiff received a refund from this Court in the amount of $455.00. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/19/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 MAIGA HRALIMA, 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. 11 PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, et al., 12 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) / 3:10-cv-00230-RCJ-WGC ORDER 13 14 This closed action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a 15 state prisoner. By order filed August 11, 2010, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. 16 (ECF No. 3). Judgment was entered that same date. (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal 17 on September 2, 2010. (ECF No. 6). 18 On September 29, 2010, the Clerk of Court received two payments of the $455.00 fee for 19 plaintiff’s appeal. (ECF Nos. 10 & 11). On May 18, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for a “writ of 20 mandamus” in which he requested that this Court refund him the overpayment of fees. (ECF No. 21 13). Court finance records indicate that on October 18, 2011, this Court’s Finance Department 22 issued a refund to plaintiff in the amount of $455.00. Because plaintiff’s motion for a refund is now 23 moot, the motion is denied. 24 25 26 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a “writ of mandamus” requesting a refund is DENIED AS MOOT. 1 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court SHALL FILE AND DOCKET the finance receipt showing that plaintiff received a refund from this Court in the amount of $455.00. 3 4 DATED this 19th day of December, 2011. 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

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?