Unpublished Disposition, 875 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1988)
Annotate this CaseNo. 88-2918.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Before WALLACE and NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and JAMES M. BURNS** , District Judge.
MEMORANDUM***
On September 6, 1985, the District Court for the District of Arizona ordered (CR 1)1 the clerk of that court not to accept for filing any original complaint or petition from Tripati except with prior approval of a judge.2 Thereafter, the district court has denied Tripati permission to file at least six additional complaints3 and has ruled on various related motions.
Tripati has filed four appeals relating to order CR 1 and later derivative orders. These appeals are listed below by the Ninth Circuit docket number assigned to each.
1. No. 86-2995, Notice of appeal (CR 9) filed December 1, 1986. Tripati appealed an order (CR 8) of October 29, 1986 in which Judge Marquez denied permission to file an additional complaint.
This court granted Tripati's motion to voluntarily dismiss No. 86-2995 onMay 5, 1987.
2. No. 87-15018, Notice of appeal (CR 29) filed November 30, 1987. Tripati appealed an order (CR 17) of October 8, 1987 in which Judge Marquez denied permission to file two additional complaints and imposed sanctions of $240.00 under Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P.
This court dismissed No. 87-15018 sua sponte for lack of a final appealable order on March 21, 1988. (CR 47)
3. No. 88-1836, Notice of appeal (CR 39) filed March 1, 1988. Tripati appealed an order (CR 38) of February 18, 1988 in which Judge Marquez denied Tripati's motion (CR 37) to vacate the original September 6, 1985 order (CR 1).
This court dismissed No. 88-1836 sua sponte for lack of a final appealable order on March 21, 1988 as part of the same order in which it dismissed No. 87-15018. (CR 47)
4. No. 88-2918, Notice of appeal (CR 44) filed June 13, 1988. Tripati now appeals (a) order CR 17 imposing sanctions; (b) the original order CR 1 requiring court approval for filing complaints; (c) the various orders refusing to vacate earlier orders; and (d) order CR 43 denying motions for a final judgment. Presumably the third part, part (c) above, encompasses the following orders:
(1) Order CR 14, denying motion CR 13 to vacate order CR 11 of May 6, 1987 denying permission to file two additional complaints.
(2) Order CR 16, denying motion CR 15 to vacate order CR 1 of September 6, 1985 requiring court approval for filing complaints.
(3) Order CR 25, denying motion CR 18 to vacate order CR 17 of October 8, 1987 denying permission to file two additional complaints and imposing sanctions.
(4) Order CR 36, denying supplemental motion CR 35 to vacate order CR 17.
(5) Order CR 38, denying motion CR 37 to vacate order CR 1.
Order CR 17, denying Tripati permission to file two complaints and imposing sanctions was entered on October 8, 1987. It was the subject of Tripati's appeal in In the Matter of Tripati, No. 87-15018, (9th Cir. March 21, 1988). This court dismissed No. 87-15018 for lack of a final appealable order. We decline to review that ruling. To the extent the present appeal is a petition for rehearing it is denied as untimely. Rule 40, Fed. R. App. P. To the extent it is a separate appeal, it is untimely and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 4(a) (1), Fed. R. App. P. ; Selph v. Council of City of Los Angeles, 593 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir. 1979).
We dismiss Tripati's appeal insofar as it relates to order CR 1 for lack of a final appealable order. 28 U.S.C. @ 1291. Alternatively, to the extent order CR 1 included any final appealable order, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the appeal is untimely. Rule 4(a) (1), Fed. R. App. P. ; Selph, 593 F.2d at 882.
C. Appeal of orders denying motions to vacate orders
This appeal is dismissed for lack of a final appealable order insofar as it relates to any district court orders denying motions to vacate orders. 28 U.S.C. @ 1291. This issue was raised and disposed of in Tripati's third previous appeal, In the Matter of Tripati, No. 88-1836 (9th Cir. March 21, 1988). Alternatively, to the extent any order denying a motion to vacate includes a final appealable order, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the appeal is untimely. Rule 4(a) (1); Selph, 593 F2d at 882. The most recent of the five district court orders denying motions to vacate was entered on February 18, 1988, more than 60 days before Tripati filed his notice of appeal.4
D. Appeal of order CR 43 denying motions for final judgment
We dismiss Tripati's appeal insofar as it relates to order CR 43 for lack of an appealable order. 28 U.S.C. @ 1291.
Based on the foregoing, we find that no part of Tripati's appeal is properly before this court. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in its entirety.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.R. 34(a) and 9th Cir.R. 34-4
Honorable James M. Burns, District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this Circuit except as provided by 9th Circuit R. 36-3
For convenience, the various motions and rulings will be referred to by the document numbers assigned by the District Court clerk
The Honorable Alfredo C. Marquez issued the order sua sponte based on factual findings that Tripati had filed numerous separate actions in the District of Arizona, most of which sought the same relief, were based on the same facts, and were filed for the sole purpose of disrupting the court's handling of cases. Ten of twelve such complaints were dismissed as without merit. In other words, Tripati is a "frequent filer"
In similar frequent filer cases, this court has recognized the district courts' discretion to issue orders restricting the filing of meritless claims by a litigant whose manifold complaints raise claims essentially identical to claims already adjudicated. See e.g. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F2d 1221, 1232 (9th Cir. 1984).
Judge Marquez denied permission for Tripati to file additional complaints in orders issued on October 17, 1986 (one complaint), October 29, 1986 (one complaint), May 6, 1987 (two complaints), and October 8, 1987 (two complaints)
On February 18, 1988, the district court denied Tripati's motion to vacate order CR 1. All other motions to vacate orders were denied by the district court before February 18, 1988. Appeal of each of the four earlier orders denying motions to vacate is untimely, a fortiori
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
