Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00420/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00420-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER T. HARRELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0420 GEB CMK

vs.

DARREL LEMOS, et al., 

Defendants. Order on Bill of Costs

 /

Currently before the court is the bill of costs submitted by defendant. Plaintiff

has filed an opposition to the bill of costs, and defendants have replied to the opposition. 

Plaintiff, Peter Harrell, brought this civil rights action alleging various violations

of his civil rights and of state law stemming from a September 2003 arrest. At the time that

plaintiff filed his suit, the charges stemming from the arrest had been dismissed. At a hearing

held on October 26, 2006, it became clear based on the statements of both parties that criminal

charges stemming from the September 2003 arrest had been re-filed in January 2006. By order

filed October 30, 2006, the court ordered plaintiff to, within fifteen days, file a second amended

complaint alleging that the criminal charges against him stemming from the September 2003

arrest were dropped, resolved in his favor, or otherwise called into question. (Doc. 3.) 

///

Case 2:05-cv-00420-GEB -CMK Document 73 Filed 01/25/07 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

2

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on November 14, 2006. On

November 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and

filed a request for judicial notice of the state charges which were pending against plaintiff as a

result of the September 2003 arrest. The court filed findings and recommendations on December

1, 2006 recommending that plaintiff’s second amended complaint be dismissed without

prejudice and that defendants’ motion to dismiss be rendered moot. On January 4, 2006, the

findings and recommendations were adopted. Plaintiff has appealed the dismissal to the Ninth

Circuit, thereby divesting this court of jurisdiction in this matter. 

In light of the pending appeal, the court will deny defendants’ bill of costs

without prejudice to renewal after the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on plaintiff’s appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 24, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00420-GEB -CMK Document 73 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2