Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04699/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04699-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUNG HA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KENNETH BURR, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-04699 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED AT

PLAINTIFF’S OWN EXPENSE

Plaintiff Hung Ha has filed a motion requesting that the Court permit him to resume his lawsuit

after paying the $350 filing fee. The Court previously granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis but dismissed his complaint without leave to amend. After plaintiff moved to set aside the

order of dismissal, the Court reaffirmed that plaintiff’s complaint had been dismissed and explained that

no further motions for reconsideration would be entertained. Plaintiff now asks that the Court permit

plaintiff to proceed with his lawsuit because plaintiff plans to pay the filing fee. The Court declines to

do so for three reasons. First, as stated in the January 29, 2008 Order, the Court will not consider any

further motions for reconsideration, and plaintiff’s motion essentially asks the Court to reconsider its

dismissal of his complaint. Second, plaintiff has appealed the dismissal of his complaint to the Ninth

Circuit, largely divesting this Court of jurisdiction over his case. See Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187,

1189 (9th Cir. 1997) (“As a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of

jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”); see also Mayweathers v. Newland,

258 F.3d 930, 935 (9th Cir. 2001). Finally, the Court notes that it has already found that plaintiff’s

complaint “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and is frivolous,” December 19, 2007

Case 3:07-cv-04699-SI Document 21 Filed 06/26/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Order at 3, and thus does not see how it would make any difference whether defendant were to pay his

filing fee now or continue to proceed in forma pauperis. For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04699-SI Document 21 Filed 06/26/08 Page 2 of 2