Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-mc-00333/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-mc-00333-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 00:0000 Cause Code Unknown

---

1

3:17-MC-00333

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re STEFAN RICARDO 

MAHALEY

Case No.: 3:17-MC-00333

ORDER RE STEFAN RICARDO 

MAHALEY'S DECLARATION

On March 10, 2017 this Court received a document from Stefan Ricardo 

Mahaley entitled “DECLARATION-OF-RESERVATION-OF-RIGHTS” 

(“Declaration”), a miscellaneous filing not related to any current civil or criminal 

case in this district. The Declaration was notarized on March 1, 2017 in 

Tallahatchie Country, Mississippi. Mr. Mahaley paid the filing fee of $47.00 for 

miscellaneous papers by check to the Clerk’s office on March 10, 2017. For the 

reasons stated below, the Declaration is REJECTED and Mr. Mahaley will NOT

be issued a refund.

I. THERE IS NO “CASE OR CONTROVERSY”:

Article III, §2 of the U.S. Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal 

courts to “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, §2, cl.1. In the instant 

Case 3:17-mc-00333 Document 2 Filed 07/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:17-MC-00333

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

matter, there is no present injury, case or controversy to which the filing relates.

Mr. Mahaley has simply submitted the Declaration to the Clerk to be retained by 

this Court. Without any sort of cognizable injury, case or controversy, the Court 

has no jurisdiction.

II. COURT NOT A PUBLIC FILE REPOSITORY:

The Court’s docket was never meant to be a public file repository. Other 

federal courts have held that petitioners must show an adequate basis to open 

and maintain a miscellaneous case. See In re Atchison-Jorgan, No. 12-MC50879, 2014 WL 1516218, at *1 (E.D. Mich, Apr. 17, 2014); see also KermanRay of House of Carr v. Martinez, No. 15-MC-00045-GPG, 2015 WL 1577623, at 

*2 (D. Colo. Apr. 2, 2015). Mr. Mahaley is not attempting to commence a civil 

action, as he did not file a complaint as required by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 3, nor does he suggest that he is seeking any relief from the Court. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. It appears that Mr. Mahaley is attempting to give his 

Declaration some sort of legal effect by creating a public miscellaneous file with 

the docket of this Court. Mr. Mahaley is not entitled to “utilize the court as a 

record-keeping system.” Robinson v. Court Clerks, E. Dist. of California, 

Sacramento, No. CIV 11-2679 JAM EFB, 2012 WL 219147, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 

24, 2012). Since he has not shown an adequate basis to maintain a 

miscellaneous case, this Court now rejects the filing.

III. NO REFUND OF FILING FEES:

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts’ Guide to Judiciary Policy (the 

“Guide”) states that filing fee refunds are generally prohibited “even if a party filed 

the case in error or the court dismissed the case or proceeding.” Guide to 

Judiciary Policy, Vol. 4, Ch. 6, § 650.10, available at http://jnet.ao.dcn/policyguidance/guide-judiciary-policy/volume-4-court-and-case-administration/ch-6-

fees. The only limited refund authority afforded to the courts is in situations 

Case 3:17-mc-00333 Document 2 Filed 07/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:17-MC-00333

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

where “errors in electronic payments are made,” specifically when erroneous or 

duplicate payments are made online. Id. § 650.20(a). Mr. Mahaley did not make 

his payment electronically.

The Guide is of persuasive authority as it codifies the policies promulgated 

by the Director of the Administrative Office and “approved by the Judicial 

Conference of the United States.” In re Sony BMG Music Entm’t, 564 F.3d 1, 7 

(1st Cir. 2009); see also Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 388 F. Supp. 2d 484, 

486-87 (M.D. Pa. 2005). It is the “official medium by which direction as to 

courtroom procedures and other information are provided to the Federal 

Judiciary in support of its day-to-day operations.” In re Sony, 564 F.3d at 7 

(quoting Kitzmiller, 388 F. Supp. at 486-87). The Court sees no reason it should 

go against the procedures contained in the Guide in the present matter. 

Therefore, even though the Court rejects the Declaration, Mr. Mahaley’s filing fee 

will not be refunded.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Declaration is REJECTED and shall 

be stricken, and Mr. Mahaley will NOT be issued a refund. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2017

Case 3:17-mc-00333 Document 2 Filed 07/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3