Al-Mansur v. County of Alameda

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 SABIR AL-MANSUR, Case No. 24-cv-06909-AMO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S FILINGS v. 9

10 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff Sabir Al-Mansur, who represents himself, brought this action against the County 14 of Alameda and several individuals. Al-Mansur voluntarily dismissed the action. ECF 81. Since 15 the dismissal, Defendants moved for attorney’s fees and Al-Mansur moved for recusal of the 16 undersigned, motions resolved by orders entered on May 30, 2025. See ECF 147 (Order Denying 17 Motions for Recusal), ECF 148 (Order Granting Motion for Attorney’s Fees). Al-Mansur has 18 nonetheless continued to file documents on the docket despite the case remaining closed and the 19 final collateral motions being resolved. See ECF Nos. 149-58. Al-Mansur has additionally sought 20 review of this Court’s Orders by the Chief Judge of the Northern District. See ECF 152. 21 To the extent Al-Mansur disagrees with the orders of this Court, he may appeal to the 22 Ninth Circuit as circumstances warrant and the Federal Rules allow. He may not seek review by 23 another judge in the District. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980); see 24 also Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1392-93 (9th Cir. 1987) (finding 25 “horizontal appeal” from one district court to another improper and that a “district court lacks 26 authority to issue a writ of mandamus to another district court”). 27 This case is closed. The Court will not consider any filings submitted in this case after its 1 further filings in this closed case. All further motions will be summarily terminated as moot. If 2 Al-Mansur continues to file material on the docket in this closed case, the Court may revoke his 3 ECF privileges without further notice. 4 6 Dated: July 15, 2025 7 = 3 . ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 9 United States District Judge 10 ll a 12

13 14

15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28