- 4 -
returned petitioner’s motion to vacate because the case was
closed, and the order of dismissal was final.
Petitioner mailed to the Court a document entitled “Motion
to Vacate Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction/Amended
Petition/Motion to Remand” that was received by the Court on
March 15, 2006. On the same day, the Court filed petitioner’s
document as a “Motion for Leave to File Motion to Vacate
Embodying Motion to Vacate”. Petitioner attached to the motion
“Track & Confirm” search results from the U.S. Postal Service Web
site indicating that the original motion to vacate she sent was
in fact mailed on January 25, 2006, 90 days after the order of
dismissal was entered. On March 29, 2006, the Court denied
petitioner’s motion for leave to file motion to vacate embodying
motion to vacate.
On May 11, 2006, the Court filed another document from
petitioner entitled “Motion for Leave to File a Motion to Vacate
the Order of Dismissal” (motion for leave). In the motion for
leave, petitioner argues that the motion from March 15, 2006, was
just an “effort to correct a previous error” in an attempt to re-
file the documents she sent on January 25, 2006, which went
unfiled. Petitioner argues further that the motion for leave
deserves to be treated as timely filed, as of January 25, 2006.
Petitioner mailed a Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal and
an amended petition concurrently with the motion for leave.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011