Hissung v. Aranas et al
Filing
40
ORDER denying Plaintiff's ECF No. 38 Motion to Correct Error. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 2/16/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
12
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ROMEO ARANAS et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )
13
I.
7
8
9
10
11
MICHAEL DAVID HISSUNG,
3:15-cv-00304-RCJ-WGC
ORDER
DISCUSSION
14
On September 22, 2016, this Court adopted the report and recommendation of the U.S.
15
Magistrate Judge and granted Defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement. (ECF
16
No. 32). In light of the settlement agreement, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application to
17
proceed in forma pauperis as moot. (ECF No. 36).
18
Plaintiff now files a motion for the Court to correct its error in denying Plaintiff’s
19
application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. (ECF No. 38). The Court denies this
20
motion to correct. In a previous order, the Court explained that a decision on the application
21
to proceed in forma pauperis was deferred in order to give the parties an opportunity to settle
22
their dispute before the $350 filing fee was paid. (ECF No. 6 at 2). The Court explained that
23
if Plaintiff did not settle his case during the stay, the Court would process the application to
24
proceed in forma pauperis and Plaintiff would be required to pay the full $350 filing fee. (Id.
25
at 3). In this case, Plaintiff and Defendants settled their case and, thus, the Court correctly
26
denied the application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot to prevent Plaintiff from paying
27
the $350 filing after settlement.
28
///
1
2
3
4
5
II.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to correct error (ECF No.
38) is denied.
Dated: This 16th day of February, 2017.
DATED: This _____ day of January, 2017.
6
7
_________________________________
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?