Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_03-cv-00411/USCOURTS-azd-4_03-cv-00411-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel A. Lopez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Country Insurance & Financial Services, et

al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 03-411-TUC-CKJ

ORDER

This case was dismissed with prejudice on September 16, 2005. In addition, Plaintiff

appealed a final order of this Court on October 7, 2005. Nevertheless, Plaintiff subsequently

filed a Motion for Transcripts at Government Expense, Motion for Appointment of Counsel,

and Motion for Reconsideration of Costs Order. 

As previously explained in the Court's 11/3/05 Order, as Plaintiff has appealed a final

decision of the Court dismissing this case with prejudice, the Court no longer has jurisdiction

over this case. See 28 U.S.C. §1291 (allowing appeals from final decisions); Green Tree

Fin'l Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 86 (2000)(a "final decision" is one "that ends

the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing more for the court to do but execute the

judgment.")(internal quotes and citations omitted); Estate of Conners by Meredith v.

O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993)("As a general rule, [t]he filing of a notice of appeal

is an event of jurisdictional significance--it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and

Case 4:03-cv-00411-CKJ Document 120 Filed 12/19/05 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

- 2 -

divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal

. . ."); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). 

Further, these motions are without merit. Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel

has already been denied in this case (Doc. #4), and there is no factual or legal support for

appointing counsel and giving Plaintiff transcripts at government expense. In addition, as

FED.R.CIV.P. 54(d) dictates that "costs . . . shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing

party unless the court otherwise directs," Plaintiff's claim that his case was brought in "good

faith" does not undermine the award of costs. While the Court checked a box on a form

which states that "This appeal has been taken in good faith," this simply reflects the Court's

belief that Plaintiff thinks he has a good faith basis for his case despite the fact that Plaintiff

has no legally viable claims against Defendants as the Court previously ruled in the Summary

Judgment Order. Nonetheless, Plaintiff filed this action and continues to pursue this action

thereby forcing Defendants to invest more time and money in this case. As such, Defendant's

request and Plaintiff's obligation to pay costs is both reasonable and fair under the

circumstances of this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff's "Motion for Reconsideration of Costs

Order" is denied. Lastly, as this is closed and the case is on appeal, Plaintiff shall direct any

further pleadings or motions in this case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

DATED this 15th day of December, 2005.

Case 4:03-cv-00411-CKJ Document 120 Filed 12/19/05 Page 2 of 2