Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04641/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04641-38/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED LAM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE CITY & COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 10-cv-04641-PJH 

ORDER RE: NOVEMBER 22 LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 240

The court is in receipt of a November 22 letter from pro se plaintiffs regarding the

Clerk’s notice of an unpaid filing fee for an appeal filed in this case. Dkt. 240. Plaintiffs’ 

letter asserts that they have a “good faith reason to believe” that no “duplicate” fee will be 

owed because their two pending appeals (9th Cir. No. 16-16559 and No. 16-15596) will 

be consolidated by the Ninth Circuit. On September 20, 2016, plaintiffs moved the Ninth 

Circuit to “waive” the filing fee and “merge” appeal No. 16-16559 with No. 16-15596. See

9th Cir. No. 16-16559 Dkt. 3. 

Whether the appeals will be consolidated or the filing fee waived on that basis is a 

matter for the Ninth Circuit. Moreover, since an appeal is pending in this matter, this 

court lacks jurisdiction over the case, save in limited circumstances not relevant here. 

See, e.g., Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Southwest Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 

1163, 1167 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2016

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 241 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 1