Walker v. United States Congress

1
3:25-cv-02064-JES-BLM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STEVEN WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES CONGRESS,
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-02064-JES-BLM
ORDER:
(1) DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM ORDER DENYING
RENEWED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
APPLICATION;
(2) DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS
MOOT; and
(3) DISMISSING CASE FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER
[ECF Nos. 9, 10]
//
//
//
Case 3:25-cv-02064-JES-BLM Document 14 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
3:25-cv-02064-JES-BLM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On August 25, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff Steven Walker’s (“Plaintiff”) motion
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 3. On September 11, 2025, the Court denied
Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the Court’s previous denial of his motion to proceed IFP.
ECF No. 5. On October 6, 2025, the Court overruled Plaintiff’s Objection to the Order
Denying Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Motion to Proceed IFP and denied
Plaintiff’s renewed Motion to Proceed IFP. ECF No. 8. In the October 6, 2025, Order, the
Court cautioned Plaintiff it would not consider any additional IFP motions or requests for
reconsideration and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee by October 27, 2025. Id. at 5. The
Court also cautioned Plaintiff that if he failed to pay the filing fee, the Court would dismiss
the case without prejudice and terminate the action. Id.
On October 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. ECF No. 9.
On October 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate and motion for relief from Order
Denying renewed IFP application. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff cites Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (“FRCP”) 60(b)(3) and argues that the Court’s rationale for denying the renewed
IFP application was based on a mistaken understanding of the factual record. Id. at 2. On
December 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. ECF No. 11.
I. 	DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction
Generally, 	“[t]he 	filing 	of 	a 	notice 	of 	appeal 	is 	an 	event 	of 	jurisdictional
significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of
its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident
Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). Yet, Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, “Appeal as of Right--When Taken,” also provides in relevant part:
(a)(4) Effect of a Motion on a Notice of Appeal.
(A) If a party files in the district court any of the following motions under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure--and does so within the time allowed by
those rules--the time to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the
order disposing of the last such remaining motion:
…
Case 3:25-cv-02064-JES-BLM Document 14 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
3:25-cv-02064-JES-BLM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(vi) for relief under Rule 60 if the motion is filed within the time
allowed for filing a motion under Rule 59;
…
(B)(i) If a party files a notice of appeal after the court announces or enters a
judgment--but before it disposes of any motion listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A)--the
notice becomes effective to appeal a judgment or order, in whole or in part,
when the order disposing of the last such remaining motion is entered.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4).
Applying Rule 4(a)(4), both the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have held that a
district court retains jurisdiction to decide a timely filed motion under Rule 59 regardless
of whether the motion was filed before or after a notice of appeal. See Griggs, 459 U.S. at
59 (“[I]n order to prevent unnecessary appellate review, the district court was given express
authority to entertain a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59, even
after a notice of appeal had been filed.”), citing Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4); see also Tripati v.
Henman, 845 F.2d 205, 206 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Because the purpose of Rule 4(a)(4) is to
prevent duplication of effort by the courts, appellate review of the underlying merits of
[petitioner’s appeal] would be premature prior to the district court’s consideration of the
motion to alter or amend the judgment.”); see also Sams v. California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. 	5:21-cv-00493-ODW (JDEx), 2025 WL 819063, at
*1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2025) (Since “Plaintiff’s FRCP 59 and FRCP 60 motions remain[ed]
pending, Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal [wa]s not yet effective and accordingly d[id] not
divest [the] Court of jurisdiction.”)
Because Plaintiff’s motion is timely, the Court therefore retains jurisdiction to decide
the instant motion regardless of whether it was filed before or after his notice of appeal.
B. Motion for Relief from Judgment
Here, Plaintiff’s entire motion repeats arguments raised in his previous motion to
reconsider the Court’s denial of his motion to proceed IFP and his Objection to the Order
Denying Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Motion to Proceed IFP. See generally ECF
Nos. 4, 7. Plaintiff does not raise any new evidence and instead argues that the Court
Case 3:25-cv-02064-JES-BLM Document 14 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
3:25-cv-02064-JES-BLM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
committed several mistakes in its prior Order Denying his motion to proceed IFP. The
Court previously addressed these arguments in prior orders regarding the ownership of his
vehicle and his monthly salary. See ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8. Since the Court has previously
addressed these issues in prior orders, as well as a prior motion for reconsideration, the
Court declines to address these issues anew.
In the Court’s October 6, 2025, Order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing
fee by October 27, 2025. ECF No. 8. To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee. The Court
therefore DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the case for failure to comply with the
Court’s October 6, 2025, Order. Plaintiff’s motion for relief from Order Denying Renewed
IFP Application is DENIED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED
AS MOOT. Plaintiff’s appeal will now proceed on this final order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-02064-JES-BLM Document 14 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4