Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05099/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05099-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 09-5099 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 3/24/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

YONG TAN HUANG,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

TIM BELL, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 09-5099 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 1

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

[re: document nos. 57, 70 ]

On December 7, 2010, this Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis and granting Plaintiff thirty days to pay the filing fee. The order

stated that if Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee within thirty days, the Court would dismiss the

action without prejudice. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, failed to pay the filing fee within

the time provided. On February 2, 2010, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice for

failure to pay the filing fee. The Court also terminated all pending motions, which included a

motion to dismiss filed by Defendants on December 7, 2009 and motions for summary judgment

filed by Plaintiff on January 22, 2010, January 28, 2010, and February 1, 2010.

Case 5:09-cv-05099-JF Document 74 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 5
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

Case No. C 09-5099 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(JFLC2)

On February 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order. 

On March 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed an amended motion seeking relief from the dismissal order. 

The Court concludes that these motions are appropriate for disposition without oral argument

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). 

Plaintiff seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which provides as

follows:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative

from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have

been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or

misconduct by an opposing party; 

(4) the judgment is void; 

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an

earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is

no longer equitable; or 

(6) any other reason that justifies relief. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). It is unclear upon which provisions of the rule Plaintiff relies. He

complains that he received the order of dismissal on February 4, 2010, only one day before the

scheduled hearing date of February 5, 2010. The Court’s dismissal order was entirely

independent of the motion to dismiss that had been set for February 5, 2010. The Court

dismissed Plaintiff’s action not based upon any deficiency in his pleading, but because he did not

pay the filing fee within the time provided by the Court. Plaintiff indicates that he attempted to

pay the filing fee after dismissal of this action, but he offers no explanation for his failure to pay

the filing fee within the thirty-day window granted by the Court.

Plaintiff objects to the fact that the Court’s dismissal order does not address the merits of

Plaintiff’s claims. Again, the action was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee – such

dismissal does not depend upon or require evaluation of the merits of Plaintiff’s claims.

Plaintiff contends that the his action was “not dismissible” because it arose under the

Case 5:09-cv-05099-JF Document 74 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Case No. C 09-5099 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(JFLC2)

United States Constitution. Plaintiff is mistaken. While the Court certainly has jurisdiction over

properly filed actions raising federal constitutional claims, such claims are subject to dismissal

when the plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee or otherwise fails to comply with the orders of the

court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985) (“Had petitioner failed to comply with a

scheduling order or pay a filing fee established by a court of appeals, that court could certainly

dismiss the appeal.”); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (recognizing “inherent power”

of court to dismiss case for want of prosecution). 

Plaintiff asserts that the Court acted improperly in failing to calendar his motion for

summary judgment for February 5, 2010. Plaintiff filed the subject motion for summary

judgment on January 22, 2010 and noticed it for hearing on February 5, 2010. The Court

declined to calendar the motion for the noticed hearing date on the ground that the motion was

filed less than thirty-five days prior to the hearing date as required by the Court’s Civil Local

Rules. See Civ. L.R. 7-2(a). Plaintiff cites an outdated version of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56 for the proposition that his motion for summary judgment was timely because it

was filed at least ten days prior to the hearing. Rule 56 no longer contains the provision relied

upon by Plaintiff. Moreover, the rule provides that its timing requirements apply “unless a

different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). This

Court’s Civil Local Rules require that a motion be filed at least thirty-five days prior to the

hearing date. Moreover, this Court’ standing order requires that counsel and parties reserve a

hearing date with the Court’s administrative law clerk prior to noticing a motion. Plaintiff failed

to comply with either requirement. Thus the Court acted well within its authority when it

declined to calendar Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for the date of February 5, 2010.

The Court is mindful of Plaintiff’s pro se status and might be inclined to grant relief from

dismissal if Plaintiff had offered an explanation for his failure to pay the filing fee or had

demonstrated any likelihood of stating a cognizable claim against Defendants. As the record

stands, the Court declines to grant relief from its order of dismissal. The Court reminds Plaintiff

that the dismissal of this action is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing of a new action against

Defendants. If Plaintiff chooses to file a new action, the Court cautions Plaintiff that he must

Case 5:09-cv-05099-JF Document 74 Filed 03/24/10 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Case No. C 09-5099 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(JFLC2)

comply with the current Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court’s Civil Local Rules, and

this Court’s standing orders.

ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion for relief from the order of dismissal is DENIED.

DATED: 3/24/2010

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-05099-JF Document 74 Filed 03/24/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Case No. C 09-5099 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(JFLC2)

Copies of Order served on:

Yong Tan Huang

345 N. 5th Street

San Jose, CA 95112

Hugh Francis Lennon hfl@robinsonwood.com, rmm@robinsonwood.com

Case 5:09-cv-05099-JF Document 74 Filed 03/24/10 Page 5 of 5