(PS) Miller v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Alan Miller, No. 2:22-cv-02113-KJM-AC PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 1S Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Alan Miller requests this court revoke his appeal and refund the duplicate fee he 18 | submitted. See Request, ECF No. 46. The court responds to these requests in turn. 19 First, under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the district court can dismiss an 20 | appeal under certain circumstances before the appeal has been docketed by the circuit clerk. 21 | Fed. R. App. P. 42(a). Here, plaintiffs appeal has been docketed. Miller v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. 22 | Agency, No. 22-02113, 2024 WL 1742135 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2024), appeal docketed, 23 | No. 24-3535 (9th Cir. June 5, 2024). Therefore, plaintiff must file the appropriate dismissal 24 | documents with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). 25 Second, plaintiffs request for the court to refund the duplicate fee paid is moot. The 26 | Clerk’s Office received a second check on May 28, 2024, and returned the check to plaintiff as a 27 | duplicate. 28 | /////

] This order resolves ECF No. 46. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 DATED: June 10, 2024. / / CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE