Branch v. State of California

Filing 26

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 24 Motion to Amend/Correct. (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
CLARENCE A. BRANCH,

7

Case No. 14-cv-00297-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
AMEND

9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

10

Re: Dkt. No. 24

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Plaintiff Clarence Branch initiated this action on January 17, 2014. On April 28, 2014, the

13
14

Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissed the case with prejudice. Almost two

15

years later, on March 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, but it was denied on

16

the basis that it was untimely. See Docket No. 19. The Ninth Circuit’s formal mandate was issued

17

on June 9, 2016. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend,” which the Court

18

construes as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

19

Procedure. The Motion is DENIED.1
The Ninth Circuit has held that even though appeal of a district court judgment divests the

20
21

district court of jurisdiction over an action, once the appellate mandate has issued, the district

22

court may consider a Rule 60(b) motion. See Gould v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York,

23

790 F.2d 769 (9th Cir.1986) (“Although language in the cited cases supports the proposition that

24

the district court never regains jurisdiction in the absence of a remand, the better approach is that

25

the district court may consider motions to vacate once the mandate has issued. . . We agree and

26

adopt the rule that, once the appellate mandate has issued, leave of this court is not required for

27
1

28

Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 626(c).

1

district court consideration of a Rule 60(b) motion.”). Therefore, the undersigned may consider

2

Plaintiff’s motion.

3

Rule 60(b) sets forth a variety of grounds on which the Court may relieve a party from a

4

final judgment. The Court finds, however, that Plaintiff has not identified any of them in his

5

Motion. Nor has he shown that his request was brought within a reasonable time, as required

6

under Rule 60(c). Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: November 28, 2016
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2