(PC) Kendrid v. Singh ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FORREST KENDRID, No. 2:19-CV-1944-JAM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 KARANDEEP SINGH, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 9) for 19 reconsideration of the court’s October 28, 2019, order (ECF No. 8). 20 The court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment under Federal Rules of 21 Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60. Generally, a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment is 22 appropriately brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Backlund v. Barnhart, 23 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985) (discussing reconsideration of summary judgment); see also 24 Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 458-59 (9th Cir. 1995). 25 Under Rule 60(a), the court may grant reconsideration of final judgments and any 26 order based on clerical mistakes. Relief under this rule can be granted on the court’s own 27 motion and at any time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). However, once an appeal has been filed and 28 docketed, leave of the appellate court is required to correct clerical mistakes while the appeal is 1 pending. See id. 2 Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment and any 3 order based on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 4 evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered within ten days of 5 entry of judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an opposing party. See 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(3). A motion for reconsideration on any of these grounds must be 7 brought within one year of entry of judgment or the order being challenged. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 60(c)(1). Under Rule 60(b), the court may also grant reconsideration if: (1) the judgment is void; 9 (2) the judgement has been satisfied, released, or discharged, an earlier judgment has been 10 reversed or vacated, or applying the judgment prospectively is no longer equitable; and (3) any 11 other reason that justifies relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)-(6). A motion for reconsideration 12 on any of these grounds must be brought “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 13 In this case, plaintiff seeks reconsideration because the court referred to him as a 14 “prisoner” instead of “civil detainee.” According to plaintiff’s complaint, he is indeed a civil 15 detainee pursuant to California Penal Code § 1026. Given the clerical error contained in the 16 court’s order, reconsideration under Rule 60(a) is warranted and plaintiff’s motion will be 17 granted. Plaintiff will in future be referred to as a “civil detainee.” Substantively, the court’s 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 October 28, 2019, order requiring plaintiff to resolve the fee status for this matter remains in 2 | effect. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 9) is granted to the extent 5 | the court made a clerical error in referring to plaintiff as a “prisoner” instead of a “civil 6 | detainee”; and 7 2. Plaintiff shall comply with the October 28, 2019, order within 30 days of 8 || the date of this order. 9 10 || Dated: December 16, 2019 Ssvcqo_ DENNIS M. COTA 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28