Previous Story
9th Circuit finds Rayphand not paying docketing, filing fees for appeal
|
Posted on Jan 18 2012
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
Reporter
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has found out upon a review of the docket that Commonwealth Retirement Association board member Sapuro Rayphand has not paid the docketing and filing fees for his appeal.
The Ninth Circuit gave Rayphand 21 days to comply with its order or otherwise his appeal will be dismissed automatically by the clerk for failure to prosecute.
The Ninth Circuit ordered Rayphand to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and pay $455 to the district court as the docketing and filing fees for this appeal.
Forma pauperis refers to a court’s permission to an indigent to initiate a legal action without having to pay for court fees or costs due to the party’s lack of financial resources.
The Ninth Circuit also ordered that the appellant (Rayphand) otherwise can show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
The Ninth Circuit said the filing of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis will automatically stay the briefing schedule under Ninth Circuit Rule 27-11.
Any motion to proceed in forma pauperis must include a financial declaration, the Ninth Circuit said.
On Sept. 8, 2011, Rayphand, through Bruce Jorgensen, has notified the District Court that he wants the Fund’s lawsuit against the CNMI government to be removed from the Superior Court and transferred to the federal court.
Rayphand stated that it has been more than two years now since associate judge Govendo rendered a $230 million judgment in the case yet there has been little, if any, meaningful steps toward enforcement of that judgment.
U.S. District Court for the NMI designated Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood last November issued a decision that found as improper Rayphand’s removal of Fund’s lawsuit.
Tydingco-Gatewood remanded the Fund’s lawsuit to the Superior Court and ordered Rayphand to pay attorney’s fees and costs to the Fund.
Tydingco-Gatewood noted that much of Rayphand’s argument for intervention is nonsensical and unrelated to the issues at hand.
Rayphand appealed to the Ninth Circuit to reverse Tydingco-Gatewood’s order.
