Crespo-Gutierrez v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 40

ORDER re plaintiff's 39 Motion for Clarification for Purposes of Appeal, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

AXEL CRESPO-GUTIERREZ,

Case No. C17-1406RSL

10
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

ORDER

U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Clarification for Purposes
of Appeal.” Dkt. # 39. Plaintiff moves the Court for clarification of a purported dismissal order
that plaintiff claims was entered as Dkt. # 33 on July 13, 2018. This reflects a Notice of Appeal
that plaintiff filed on August 6, 2018, purporting to appeal “this district court’s order dated: July
13, 2018.” See Dkt. # 34. Plaintiff’s confusion—and the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal of his
appeal—may stem from the fact that the Court did not enter an order on July 13, 2018, much
less a dismissal. On the docket, Dkt. # 33 (which was entered on July 13, 2018) is a Reply filed
by the United States in the briefing on its Motion to Dismiss.
After plaintiff filed the Notice of Appeal, the Court did in fact dismiss his case in an
Order and Judgment entered September 5, 2018. See Dkts. ## 37, 38. That Judgment terminated
the case and is a final decision appealable to the Ninth Circuit. See James v. Price Stern Sloan,
Inc., 283 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court notes that plaintiff has 60 days from the
entry of the Order and Judgment to file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).
ORDER - 1

1

DATED this 12th day of September, 2018.

2
3
4

A
Robert S. Lasnik

5

United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 2