Norman v. Federal Bureau Investigation
- William Alsup
- 3:22-cv-07648
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Norman v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Judge Alsup dismissed the case without prejudice for nonpayment and denied reconsideration motions.
Garred F. Norman, whose action was dismissed without prejudice and whose motions for reconsideration were denied; the named defendants were no longer required to litigate the dismissed action.
What happened
In Garred F. Norman v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al., the court had ordered Norman to pay a $400 filing fee by January 18, 2023, or the case would be dismissed. He had not paid the fee by January 19.
The court dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. It also denied Norman’s motions asking the court to reconsider its earlier denials of permission to proceed without paying the fee and his request for appointed counsel.
Judge William Alsup said Norman had presented no new law or facts supporting reconsideration. The court also remained convinced that the action was frivolous and that exceptional circumstances did not justify appointing counsel. The order advised Norman that he could appeal to the Ninth Circuit within 60 days after judgment was entered.
The detailed version
- Norman v. Federal Bureau Investigation · No. 3:22-cv-07648
- William Alsup
- Jan. 19, 2023
Background
A previous order warned that Norman’s failure to pay the $400 filing fee by January 18, 2023, would result in dismissal. The January 19 order states that he still had not paid the fee.
Norman also asked the court to reconsider earlier orders denying him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and denying his request for appointed counsel.
Rulings
The court dismissed the action without prejudice because Norman did not pay the required filing fee. The order used the same dismissal disposition again at the end of the ruling.
The court denied Norman’s motions for reconsideration. It explained that reconsideration may be denied when a motion identifies no new law or facts. The court found that Norman had offered no new law or facts. It also stated that the action appeared frivolous and that no exceptional circumstances justified appointing counsel for a civil litigant.
Appeal information
The court advised Norman that he may appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit within 60 days after judgment is entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.