J. A. H. Barkeij v. Ford Motor Co.

Good Law
230 F.2d 729
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 19, 195618-55982California1,554 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stephens, J.

For clarity, the parties herein will be referred to as “plaintiff” and “defendant.”

Plaintiff Barkeij has appealed in pro-pria persona from a judgment of the District Court entered June 29, 1954, dismissing his complaint with prejudice. On July 15, 1954, plaintiff filed in the Court below his Motion for Rehearing and New Trial. Subsequently, and during the pen- dency of said motion, two notices of appeal were filed from the judgment, one by plaintiff as attorney pro se on July 22, 1954, and the other by his then attorneys on July 27, 1954. On August 23rd plaintiff petitioned the Court for permission to prosecute his appeal in forma pauperis. The Court below on February 23, 1955, denied plaintiff’s Motion for Rehearing and New Trial; and on October 5, 1955 granted nunc pro tunc, as of the previous February 23rd, defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s motions to bring in a third Party defendant, and to proceed in forma pauperis. At the same time the District Judge certified in writing that plaintiff’s petition to appeal in forma pauperis was frivolous and not taken in good faith.

On November 8, 1955, plaintiff, having failed to further prosecute his appeals, defendant moved this…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.