Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00795/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00795-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Chertoff
Defendant
Percy Orum
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

 The Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (See Docket No. 30.) 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORUM,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 CHERTOFF,

Defendant. /

No. C05-00795 MJJ

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF

APPEAL FILING FEES FOR APPEAL

FEES PREVIOUSLY PAID

Before the Court is Plaintiff Percy Orum’s (“Plaintiff”) Request for Reinstatement of Appeal

Filing Fees for Appeal Fees Previously Paid (“Request”). (Docket No. 88.) For the following

reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Request.

On December 28, 2007, the Court granted Defendant Michael Chertoff’s (“Defendant”) 

motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff then appealed the Court’s order. Rather than paying the

appellate filing fees, however, Plaintiff filed this motion requesting that the Court reinstate the

appellate fees Plaintiff previously paid. (Request at 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the Court

reinstate the fees he paid to appeal the Court’s April 6, 2006 order granting in part and denying in

part Defendant’s motion to dismiss.1 (Docket Nos. 28-29.) 

This Court is not aware of, nor did Plaintiff cite to, any authority suggesting that multiple

appeals in a single case are subject to only one filing fee. Instead, the appellate court requires a

filing fee whenever an appeal is filed, so long as the plaintiff is not in forma pauperis or a

Case 3:05-cv-00795-MJJ Document 90 Filed 02/14/08 Page 1 of 2
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

2

government entity. See 9TH CIR. R. 3-1. Plaintiff has not applied to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2008 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00795-MJJ Document 90 Filed 02/14/08 Page 2 of 2