Paul Weldon v. Dyer et al
Filing
113
ORDER GRANTING 94 Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 03/18/2015. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
PAUL WELDON,
Plaintiff,
8
11
12
13
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER.
v.
9
10
Case No. 1:13-CV-00540-LJO-SAB
JOHN CONLEE, POLICE OFFICER,
FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT;
ECONO TOWING; MARTY KODMAN,
OWNER, ECONO TOWING; ROBERT
KODMAN, OWNER, ECONO TOWING;
AND BERYLE DODSON, EMPLOYEE,
ECONO TOWING,
(Doc. 94)
Defendants.
14
15
Before the Court in the above-styled and numbered cause of action is Defendants’ “Motion
16
17
for Nunc Pro Tunc,” filed February 4, 2014 (Doc. 94), by which they ask the Court to acknowledge
18
its prior dismissal of Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (“Section 1986”) claims as well as all of
19
Plaintiff’s claims against Chief Jerry Dyer, and to remove Chief Dyer as a Defendant. Defendants
20
have subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 97). In order to clarify which of the
21
claims remain in the operative complaint in light of the previous dismissals, the Court will address
22
the instant motion in advance of its adjudication of Defendants’ summary judgment motion. The
23
Court deems the matter appropriate for determination without oral argument. See Local Rule
24
230(g).
25
“Nunc pro tunc, Latin for ‘now for then,’ refers to a court’s inherent power to enter an order
26
having retroactive effect.” Iouri v. Ashcroft, 487 F.3d 76, 87 (2nd Cir. 2007) (citing Black’s Law
27
Dictionary 1100 (8th Ed. 2004)). A district court uses nunc pro tunc relief for the limited purpose
28
of clarifying the record such that it reflects “what the district court actually intended to do at an
1
1
earlier date, but which it did not sufficiently express or did not accomplish due to some error or
2
inadvertence.” United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Martin v.
3
Henley, 452 F.2d 295, 299 (9th Cir. 1971)); see also U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V., 590 F.3d
4
1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Sumner, 226 F.3d at1009-10 (“[T]he power [of a nunc pro tunc
5
order] is a limited one, and may be used only where necessary to correct a clear mistake and
6
prevent injustice. It does not imply the ability to alter the substance of that which actually
7
transpired or to backdate events to serve some other purpose.”)). Nunc pro tunc relief “should be
8
granted or refused as justice may require.” Mitchell v. Overman, 103 U.S. 62, 65 (1882).
9
Having considered the record in this case, the parties’ briefing, and the relevant law, the
10
Court will grant Defendants’ motion because doing so clarifies the record. Defendants are correct
11
that the Court previously dismissed without leave to amend Plaintiff’s Section 1986 action and all
12
claims against Chief Jerry Dyer in the Court’s July 9, 2013 Order (see Doc. 14); and, that the Court
13
granted Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint for the sole purpose of substituting three Doe
14
defendants with proper names. See Doc. 37. This Court rendered an Order on July 9, 2013 (Doc.
15
14), in which it adopted in full the Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge (see
16
Doc. 12), and explicitly ordered that:
17
18
2. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Jerry Dyer and Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. §
1986 are DISMISSED, without leave to amend; and
20
3. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Conlee, Econo Towing
and John Doe #1-3 under the Fourth Amendment (excessive force, unreasonable search and
unreasonable seizure) and under the Fourteenth Amendment (failure to provide sufficient
notice regarding the seizure of Plaintiff’s vehicle).
21
In Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, lodged March 17, 2014 (Doc. 36), he properly
19
22
substituted Marty Kodman and Robert Kodman, owners of Econo Towing, and Beryle Dodson, an
23
employee at Econo Towing, for the Doe Defendants. Contrary to the Court’s July 2013 Order,
24
however, Plaintiff failed to remove Jerry Dyer as a Defendant and continued to assert the same
25
claims against Dyer. See Doc. 36, ¶ 28, and prayer for relief ¶ 1. This Court also observes that
26
although the Magistrate Judge’s more recent Findings & Recommendations, rendered October 23,
27
2014 (Doc. 86), referred to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC,” Doc. 77) as the
28
“Operative Complaint,” the mistakes in the pleading persist. Notwithstanding the Magistrate
2
1
Judge’s October 2014 reference to the FAC, such a reference did nothing to legitimize Plaintiff’s
2
inclusion of a terminated defendant or dismissed claims. The FAC plainly conflicts with the
3
Court’s July 2013 Order. Plaintiff again names Jerry Dyer as a defendant, asserts the same
4
previously dismissed claims against Dyer, and maintains the previously dismissed section 1986
5
action. See Doc. 77. It is therefore necessary to correct Plaintiff’s clear mistakes, correct the
6
inadvertent oversight of these errors, and clarify the record so that it aligns with what the Court
7
actually intended to do previously. See Sumner, 226 F.3d at 1009-10. Accordingly,
8
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion a for Nunc Pro Tunc Order(Doc.
9
94), is GRANTED. The Court specifically acknowledges that it proceeds according to its July 9,
10
2013 Order (Doc. 14), that Plaintiff’s Section 1986 action and all claims against Jerry Dyer have
11
been dismissed, and ORDERS the parties to comply with the Court’s July 2013 Order dismissing
12
such claims and terminating such defendants. Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the July 2013
13
Order, the instant Order, or any of the Court’s orders will result in the dismissal of this action
14
without further notice. Parties are advised to note well that the Court has discretion to impose any
15
and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court, including
16
dismissal of an action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11;
17
Local Rule 110.
18
19
In light of the previous dismissal, the Clerk and the parties SHALL use the modified style
for all future pleadings in the case.
20
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
March 18, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?