Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04600/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04600-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

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 

Case No. 14-cv-04600 NC 

ORDER STRIKING IMPROPER FILING 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

SERAJUL HAQUE, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED 

STATES, and others, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-04600 NC

ORDER STRIKING IMPROPER 

FILING 

Dkt. No. 70 

 

One day after this Court issued an order admonishing plaintiff against further 

improper filings, Dkt. No. 68, plaintiff submitted another filing, Dkt. No. 70, that is 

incomprehensible and not a proper request for Court order in compliance with Civil Local 

Rule 7-1(a). The Court orders Dkt. No. 70 stricken from the record. Plaintiff is 

admonished again that any future improper filings will be stricken from the record and may 

result in sanctions against plaintiff. 

On January 16, 2015, plaintiff also filed a notice of appeal from the Court’s January 

15 order granting the federal defendants’ motion for more time to file their opposition to 

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denying plaintiff’s motion for fees and costs, and 

ordering plaintiff to cease improper filings. Dkt. No. 71. While, as a general rule, a proper 

notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction of a case from the district court to a court of appeals, 

Case 5:14-cv-04600-NC Document 72 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 2
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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Case No

ORDER

the filing

jurisdict

plaintiff

the Distr

 IT

D

. 14-cv-0460

R STRIKING

g of an app

tion. Ruby 

f’s filing of 

rict Court o

T IS SO OR

ate: January

00 NC 

G IMPROPER

eal from a n

v. Sec’y of 

an appeal i

of jurisdictio

RDERED. 

y 20, 2015 

 

R FILING 

non-appeala

U. S. Navy,

s from a no

on. 

 

 2 

able order d

, 365 F.2d 3

on-appealab

 _____ Nath

Unit

does not div

385, 388-89

ble order an

_________ hanael M. C

ted States M

vest the dist

9 (9th Cir. 1

nd, therefore

__________ Cousins 

Magistrate J

trict court o

1966). Here

e, does not 

____ 

Judge 

of 

e, 

divest 

Case 5:14-cv-04600-NC Document 72 Filed 01/20/15 Page 2 of 2