Matthews v. Holland

Filing 93

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/25/2023 DENYING 91 Motion to alter or amend the judgment. The first sentence of paragraph 1 of the court's 10/5/2023 89 order is AMENDED nunc pro tunc to 10/5/2021 by replacing the first sentence with the following two sentences: Plaintiff's unopposed motion to reopen in Matthews v. Holland, Case No. 1:14- cv-1959 KJM DB, ECF No. 86; and the unopposed motions to lift the stays and dismiss the cases of Rico v. Beard e t al., Case No. 2:17-cv-1402 (E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 125; Wilson v. Beard et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01424 (E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 45; and Suarez v. Beard, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00340 (E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 114, are GRANTED. All four cases are DISMISSED on the grounds of qualified immunity. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

IVAN L. MATTHEWS,

11
12
13
14

No. 1:14-cv-1959 KJM DB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

KIM HOLLAND, Warden,
Defendant.

15
16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

18

§ 1983. The court dismissed this action on October 5, 2021 on the ground that plaintiff’s claims

19

are barred by qualified immunity. October 5, 2021 Order, ECF No. 89, at 6. Judgment was

20

entered the same day. ECF No. 90. On October 20, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to alter or

21

amend the judgment. ECF No. 91. Plaintiff has failed to present any grounds that would support

22

his motion. The court therefore will deny the motion. The court will, by this order and on its

23

own motion, correct clerical errors in the October 5, 2021 order, nunc pro tunc to October 5,

24

2021. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a); see also Nisenan Tribe of Nevada City Rancheria v. Jewell,

25

650 Fed. App’x 497, 499 (9th Cir. 2016) (court has authority to correct clerical error nunc pro

26

tunc where correction does not affect substantive rights and “is limited to making the record

27

reflect what the district court actually intended to do at an earlier date” (citation omitted)). Here,

28
1

1

the correction is made to correct the procedural posture this case was in when the court dismissed

2

it; it does not affect the substantive rights of the parties.

3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

5

action, ECF No. 91, is DENIED.

6

2.

7

amended nunc pro tunc to October 5, 2021 by replacing the first sentence with the

8

following two sentences:

9

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to reopen in Matthews v. Holland,
Case No. 1:14-cv-1959 KJM DB, ECF No. 86; and the unopposed
motions to lift the stays and dismiss the cases of Rico v. Beard et
al., Case No. 2:17-cv-1402 (E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 125; Wilson v.
Beard et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01424 (E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 45; and
Suarez v. Beard, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00340 (E.D. Cal.), ECF
No. 114, are GRANTED. All four cases are DISMISSED on the
grounds of qualified immunity.

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff’s October 20, 2021 motion to alter or amend the judgment in this

The first sentence of paragraph 1 of the court’s October 5, 2021 order is

DATED: July 25, 2023.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2