(PC) Stafford v. Kramer ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WILLIAM STAFFORD, 1:15-cv-00038-NONE-GSA-PC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER AMENDING JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 60(b) 11 v. ORDER FOR CLERK TO ENTER AMENDED 12 NORM KRAMER, et al., JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THIS ORDER AND CLOSE CASE 13 Defendants. 14 I. BACKGROUND 15 Plaintiff William Stafford is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 16 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 On May 12, 2017, this case was dismissed with prejudice based on plaintiff’s failure to 18 state a claim, and judgment was entered. (Doc. Nos. 17, 18.) On May 25, 2017, plaintiff filed a 19 notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. No. 20.) On June 10, 2021, the 20 Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum affirming in part and vacating in part the district court’s 21 substantive determination and remanding the case to the district court. (Doc. No. 24.) 22 The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instructions to modify the 23 judgment to make clear that the dismissal of the state law claims is without prejudice, as follows: 24 “[W]hen a court ‘dismisses the federal claim leaving only state claims for 25 resolution, the court should decline jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss 26 them without prejudice.’ Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t., 40 F.3d 1041, 27 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Les Shockley Racing v. Nat’l Hot Rod Ass’n, 884 28 1 F.2d 504, 509 (9th Cir. 1989)). The district court here properly declined to 2 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Stafford’s state law claims but should 3 have dismissed the state law claims without prejudice. Accordingly, while we 4 affirm the district court’s substantive determinations, we vacate the judgment and 5 remand the case to the district court with instructions to modify the judgment to 6 make clear that the dismissal of the state law claims is without prejudice. See id. 7 (doing the same).” 8 (Ninth Circuit’s Memorandum, ECF No. 24 at 5.) 9 II. RULE 60(a) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) states, in relevant part, that “[t]he court may correct 11 a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a 12 judgment, order, or other part of the record.” “In determining whether a mistake may be corrected 13 under Rule 60(a), ‘[the Ninth Circuit] focuses on what the court originally intended to do.’” 14 Tattersalls, Ltd. v. DeHaven, 745 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Blanton v. Anzalone, 15 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 (9th Cir. 1987)). “The basic distinction between ‘clerical mistakes’ and 16 mistakes that cannot be corrected pursuant to Rule 60(a) is that the former consists of ‘blunders 17 in execution’ whereas the latter consist of instances where the court changes its mind . . . .” Id., 18 813 F.2d at 1577 n.2. 19 “The quintessential ‘clerical’ errors are where the court errs in transcribing the judgment 20 or makes a computational mistake.” Tattersalls, Ltd., 745 F.3d at 1297 (citation omitted). But 21 Rule 60(a) “covers more than those situations.” Id. For example, a district court may correct a 22 final judgment pursuant to Rule 60(a) to change a dismissal for want of prosecution without 23 prejudice to with prejudice. See Huey v. Teledyne, Inc., 608 F.2d 1234, 1236–37 (9th Cir. 1979); 24 Turner v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, No. 2:16–cv–02413–RFB–VCF, 2017 WL 2869500, 25 at *2 (D. Nev. July 3, 2017); accord Rivera v. PNS Stores, Inc., 647 F.3d 188, 194 (5th Cir. 2011) 26 (“Inadvertently designating a dismissal as being ‘without prejudice’ instead of ‘with prejudice’ 27 is the type of rote, typographical error of transcription that could be committed by a law clerk or 28 a judicial assistant. It is not an error of judgment or legal reasoning.”); see also 11 Fed. Prac. & 1 Proc. Civ. § 2854 (3d ed.) (“A great variety of matters have been held by the courts to come 2 within Rule 60(a),” including “clerical errors, the failure to enter judgment or an opposing party’s 3 motion, the omission of a filing date, and mathematical computations,” as well as if the judgment 4 “wrongly apportions the damages between the parties, confuses special and general damages, or 5 reverses answers in the verdict.”) In sum, Rule 60(a) “allows a court to clarify a judgment in 6 order to correct a failure to memorialize part of its decision, to reflect the necessary implications 7 of the original order, to ensure that the court’s purpose is fully implemented, or to permit 8 enforcement.” Tattersalls, Ltd., 745 F.3d at 1298 (quoting Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 9 1079 (9th Cir. 2012)). 10 III. CONCLUSION 11 In this case, the court failed to clarify in the Final Judgment for this case, entered on May 12 12, 2017, that Plaintiff’s state law claims were dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, the 13 court shall amend the Final Judgment to reflect dismissal of Plaintiff’s state law claims without 14 prejudice, reflecting the necessary implications of the original order and ensuring that the court’s 15 purpose is fully implemented.. 16 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. Pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court amends 18 the Final Judgment in this case, which was entered on May 12, 2017; and 19 2. The Clerk is directed to: 20 (1) Enter an Amended Judgment in this case reflecting that Plaintiff’s federal 21 claims are dismissed with prejudice, but Plaintiff’s state law claims are 22 dismissed without prejudice; and 23 (2) Close this case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: August 17, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 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