Norman v. Federal Bureau Investigation
- William Alsup
- 3:22-cv-07648
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Norman v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Judge Alsup denied Norman’s injunction motion because the action had been dismissed and no new basis supported reconsideration.
Garred F. Norman’s motion was denied. The action had already been dismissed without prejudice, and the court stated that Norman could appeal that dismissal to the Ninth Circuit within 60 days after judgment was entered.
What happened
Garred F. Norman sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other defendants. The court had dismissed the action without prejudice on January 19, 2023.
Four days later, Norman filed an emergency motion seeking an injunction and alleging fraud on the court. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or explain why the action was originally dismissed.
The court denied the motion because the action was already dismissed and the motion identified no new law or facts supporting reconsideration. Judge William Alsup reiterated that Norman could appeal the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for 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. 27, 2023
Background
The court stated that it had dismissed this action without prejudice on January 19, 2023. On January 23, Garred F. Norman filed an “Ex Parte Motion for an Injunction and Fraud upon the United States District Court.”
Ruling
The court denied Norman’s motion. It explained that the action had already been dismissed and that the motion stated no new law or facts justifying reconsideration of the dismissal. Reconsideration is a request for the court to revisit an earlier ruling.
The court also reiterated that Norman could appeal the dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit within 60 days after entry of judgment. This order did not explain the reasons for the original dismissal or decide the merits of the underlying action.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.