Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03536/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03536-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT CURTIS,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-3536 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING PETITION

FOR REHEARING

DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN

AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN

DEVELOPMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

The court is in receipt of a submission titled “petition for rehearing,” filed by plaintiff

on December 18, 2009. This so-called petition is nonsensical and incomprehensible,

making it impossible for the court to ascertain the nature of plaintiff’s request. To the

extent, moreover, that plaintiff seeks some kind of rehearing (as indicated in the title), the

court notes that plaintiff’s underlying complaint was dismissed more than three years ago –

on September 5, 2006 – and that a judgment was entered that same day. Furthermore, the

Ninth Circuit dismissed plaintiff’s appeal therefrom for failure to prosecute on April 18,

2007. Accordingly, and since the underlying action has been long since terminated, there

is no pending item or recent order that presents a conceivable or timely ground upon which

plaintiff may seek rehearing. 

As such, plaintiff’s petition is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03536-PJH Document 14 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 1