Rowen v. Prasifka et al

Filing 70

ORDER by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 66 Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification. Amended Pleadings due by 9/12/2024. Signed on 8/29/2024. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROBERT ROWEN,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION

v.

9
10

WILLIAM PRASIFKA, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 66

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 23-cv-02806-DMR

12

On June 28, 2024, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss self-represented

13

Plaintiff Robert Rowen’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) challenging the suspension and

14

revocation of his medical license. [Docket No. 63 (June 28, 2024 Order).] The court granted

15

Plaintiff one “final opportunity” to amend his complaint and ordered Plaintiff to file any amended

16

complaint by July 29, 2024, noting, “Plaintiff shall plead his best case.” Id. at 15-16 (emphasis

17

removed).1
On July 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “motion for clarification” in which he describes four

18
19

claimed “ambiguities” in the June 28, 2024 Order. [Docket No. 66.]2 Plaintiff cites Federal Rules

20

of Civil Procedure 60(a), 60(b), and 72(b)(3) as authority for the relief he seeks. Mot. 2.
Rule 72(b)(3) does not apply because that rule addresses objections to magistrate judges’

21
22

recommendations on dispositive pretrial matters. This matter was originally assigned to the

23

undersigned and all parties consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. [Docket Nos. 9, 11, 47.]
Rule 60(a) permits a court to “correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight

24
25
26
27
28

The court also referred Plaintiff to the section “Representing Yourself” on the Court’s website
and the Court’s Legal Help Centers for unrepresented parties. June 28, 2024 Order 16.
1

2

Defendants filed an unopposed request for a one-day extension of the deadline to file a response
to Plaintiff’s motion. [Docket No. 67.] The request is granted.

1

or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.” Fed. R. Civ.

2

P. 60(a). Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration of a final judgment, order, or proceeding “upon

3

a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud;

4

(4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’

5

which would justify relief.” Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

Liberally construing Plaintiff’s motion for clarification, it appears that he seeks relief under

8

Rule 60(a) as to all or part of the first three “ambiguities” identified in his motion. First, Plaintiff

9

requests that the court clarify its reference to Exhibit A in Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice

10

(Docket No. 49) in the June 28, 2024 Order. Mot. 3; see June 28, 2024 Order 1-2. Exhibit A

11

consists of two documents: 1) a ten-page “Proposed Decision” from an administrative law judge

12

with California’s Office of Administrative Hearings dated July 18, 2023; and 2) a decision of the

13

Medical Board of California adopting the Proposed Decision as the Decision and Order of the

14

Medical Board of California (“CMB”) dated August 25, 2023. [Docket No. 49-1.] As the two

15

documents in Exhibit A together comprise the “CMB Decision,” the June 28, 2024 Order referred

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

to Exhibit A as the “CMB Decision.”
Second, Plaintiff discusses the court’s citation at page 2, line 12 of the June 28, 2024
Order, “See Compl. 2-5.” Mot. 3; see June 28, 2024 Order 2. Plaintiff states, “Plaintiff guesses
the reference is to ECF 1” and appears to challenge the court’s citation to the original complaint
filed at Docket No. 1, noting that the FAC is the current operative pleading and that the complaint
“was moot.” Mot. 3. To clarify, the citation in question is to the original complaint filed at
Docket No. 1. Plaintiff does not appear to request other relief with respect to this citation.
Third, Plaintiff challenges the court’s references to the CMB Decision, possibly disputing
the accuracy of the court’s pinpoint citations to that document. Mot. 3. The June 28, 2024 Order

24
clearly references the CMB Decision filed at Docket No. 49-1 and these references are easily
25

discernable. The court denies Plaintiff’s motion for relief on this issue.

26
Finally, Plaintiff challenges other aspects of the June 28, 2024 Order as erroneous and
27

unsupported and disputes various aspects of or statements in the OMB Decision. Mot. 4-6. To the

28
2

1

extent Plaintiff contends that relief is appropriate under Rule 60(b), his motion fails to show “(1)

2

mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void

3

judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which

4

would justify relief.” See Fuller, 950 F.2d at 1442. The motion is accordingly denied.

further extensions shall be granted. Plaintiff shall plead his best case.

7

S

12

aM

onn
Judge D

ER

H

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

R NIA

______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
Chief Magistrate Judge . Ryu

RT

United States District Court
Northern District of California

D

RDERE

OO
IT IS S

NO

11

Dated: August 29, 2024

FO

10

UNIT
ED

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

8

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
T
TA

LI

6

The extension to file a second amended complaint is extended to September 12, 2024. No

A

5

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C