Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06606/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06606-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONICA VALLADARES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

STEVE WESTLY, CALIFORNIA )

STATE CONTROLLER, )

)

Defendant )

____________________________________)

CV F 04-6606 AWI SMS

ORDER ON VARIOUS

MOTIONS BY PLAINTIFF

[Documents # 15, 17, and 18]

This is an action that was originally commenced in the Superior Court of Stanislaus

County and was removed by plaintiff Monica Valladares (“Plaintiff”) on November 24, 2004. 

The case apparently arose as a result of the eviction of Plaintiff from property located in rural

Stanislaus County. The case was dismissed from this court and remanded to the Superior

Court on March 9, 2005. The court noted that the removal statute vests removal authority in

defendants only and a plaintiff who has filed a case in superior court may not remove that

case to district court. Doc. 10. Plaintiff has appealed the court’s order dismissing and

remanding the case and denying Plaintiff’s motion for evidentiary hearing on removal of the

case from Superior Court. 

Plaintiff has filed three motions; a motion to set aside order setting appeal bond, a

motion for injunction pending appeal, and a motion to correct omission in the certificate of

record. There is also an objection to the order setting appeal bond, which the court interprets

to be additional briefing on Plaintiff’s motion to set aside order setting the appeal bond.

Case 1:04-cv-06606-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/06/05 Page 1 of 3
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 All references to Rules hereinafter are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

unless otherwise specified.

2

Pursuant to Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,

1

 “the district court

may require an appellant to file a bond or provide other security in any form and amount

necessary to ensure payment of costs on appeal.” The costs secured by Rule 7 are limited to

the costs that are taxable to the appellant pursuant to Rule 39(e); which include costs for

preparation and transmission of the record, and reporter’s transcript, and the fee for filing the

notice of appeal. See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, Inc., 1991 WL 81866

(D. Or. 1991) (bond under Rule 7 covers only costs taxable to appellant under Rule 39 and

not attorney fees). 

Other than stating in her objection to the order setting the appeal bond that she does

not understand what the bond is for or to whom the bond is to be paid, Plaintiff alleges no

discernable reason why the bond should not be required. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the

order setting appeal bond will therefore be denied and Plaintiff is directed to pay the bond to

the clerk of this court for the reasons stated above.

Apparently in the alternative, Plaintiff moves for an order “staying execution on or

any proceedings to enforce any type of judgment [or] order . . .” including the court’s order of

April 15, 2005 setting the appeal bond. Plaintiff’s motion to stay is filed pursuant to Rule

62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 62(c) provides that when an appeal is

taken from a final judgment “granting, dissolving, or denying an injunction, the court in its

discretion may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction during the pendency of the

appeal . . . .” In this case, there is no final judgment that grants dissolves or denies an

injunction; there is only the dismissal of the action in federal court and remand to the state

court. To the extent Plaintiff is actually requesting the court stay imposition of the appeal

bond, Rule 62 does not provide any authority for such a stay. To the extent Plaintiff is

requesting the court stay any monetary judgments against plaintiff pursuant to Rule 62(d),

Case 1:04-cv-06606-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/06/05 Page 2 of 3
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

such a stay would not be appropriate because there are no monetary judgments against

Plaintiff that arise out of this case. To the extent Plaintiff may be requesting stay of

execution of judgment in cases other than this case, the court lacks that authority. An

injunction pending appeal is therefore not appropriate. 

Plaintiff’s “Motion to Require [the Clerk of the Court] to Correct Omission in

Certificate of Record Dated April 14, 2005,” is largely indecipherable. A standard Certificate

of Record was issued to the Ninth Circuit on April 14, 2005, indicating the record was

complete. Doc. 13. Although Plaintiff’s motion to correct seems to allude to deficiencies in

either the record or the certificate, Plaintiff specifies no deficiencies, nor are any apparent by

inspection. It is conceivable that Plaintiff, having submitted a Transcript Designation and

Ordering Form, is, or was, under the impression there were or are transcripts of proceedings

that are pertinent to the appeal in this case. A letter from Gail Thomas, Court Reporter has

been filed in connection with Plaintiff’s case number CV 03-5450 informing Plaintiff there

are no recorded proceedings with respect to that case. The same is true of this case.

Because no recorded proceedings have been held with respect to this case, and

because Plaintiff fails to identify how the record or the certificate of record is deficient in any

respect, Plaintiff’s motion to correct will be denied.

THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, Plaintiffs motion for injunction

pending appeal, motion to set aside order setting appeal bond, and motion to correct the

record or certificate of record are each DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

h2ehf UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06606-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/06/05 Page 3 of 3