Opinion
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND RECONSIDERATION; AND DIRECTING THAT NO FURTHER DOCUMENTS BE FILED IN THIS CLOSED CASE [Re:ECFNos. 112 and 113]
JEREMY FOGEL, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Domenic Tricome, acting pro se, filed this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 30, 2009. Compl., ECF 1. Tricome asserted fraud and related claims against Defendant eBay, Inc. ("eBay") and several of its officers and attorneys. Id. He alleged that his eBay accounts had been wrongfully suspended and that eBay had violated various aspects of its user agreement. Id. On October 20, 2009, the Pennsylvania court dismissed all defendants other than eBay and transferred the case to this district. Order, ECF 29. Tricome unsuccessfully appealed the transfer order, and the case was transferred to this Court on July 22, 2010. Dkt. Entry, ECF 36.
This Court held a Case Management Conference on December 3, 2010. Minute Entry, ECF 79. Plaintiff did not appear. Id. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and it set a show cause hearing for February 4, 2011. Order to Show Cause, ECF 80. Tricome filed a Motion for Sanctions and to Change Venue, which the Court also set for hearing on February 4, 2011. Clerk's Notice, ECF 81. On February 1, 2011, after reviewing the record and the papers filed by the parties, the Court issued an order dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute, terminating all pending motions, and vacating all scheduled dates. Dismissal Order, ECF 85. Tricome appealed the Dismissal Order.
On October 16, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff s action in an unpublished Memorandum disposition. Mem. Dispo., ECF 106. Plaintiffs subsequent petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied. Order, ECF 107. The mandate issued on March 28, 2013. Mandate, ECF 108. Plaintiff s petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on October 7, 2013. Appeal Remark, ECF 111.
Exactly one year later, Plaintiff filed the present motions for default judgment and reconsideration. Motions, ECF 112, 113. Those motions are hereby DENIED. While a district court retains jurisdiction to entertain certain motions after affirmance of its judgment, a district court may not act in a manner inconsistent with a mandate of affirmance except with consent of the appellate court. See Palomo v. Baba, 497 F.2d 959, 960 (9th Cir. 1974). In this case, the mandate affirmed this Court's dismissal of Tricome's action for failure to prosecute. Even if his motions had merit, any order granting the relief Tricome has requested would be inconsistent with the mandate.
As explained above, this action has been dismissed; that dismissal has been affirmed; and Tricome's petition for writ of certiorari has been denied. Accordingly, no further filings will be entertained in this closed case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.