Sadid v. Idaho State University et al

Filing 269

ORDER CORRECTING FEBRUARY 6, 2014 WITHDRAWAL ORDER (Dkt. 250) re 250 Order on Motion to Withdraw. IT IS ORDERED that the 2/6/2014 withdrawal order in this case, Docket 250, is amended to delete this language from the second sentence:, as explai ned further in its Memorandum Decision of this date. Otherwise, the 2/6/2014 order shall remain unchanged. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
HABIB SADID, an individual,
Case No. 4:11-cv-00103-BLW

Plaintiff,
v.
IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY,
ARTHUR VAILAS, RICHARD
JACOBSEN, GRAHAM GARNER,
DAVID BEARD, and JOHN/JANE
DOES 1 through X, whose true identities
are presently unknown,

ORDER CORRECTING
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 WITHDRAWAL
ORDER (Dkt. 250)

Defendants.

BACKGROUND
On February 6, 2014, this Court entered an order allowing plaintiff Dr. Habib
Sadid’s former counsel, Ronaldo Coulter, to withdraw. See Dkt. 250. The order
incorrectly states that the Court had also issued a concurrent written memorandum
explaining why it found good cause to allow Mr. Coulter to withdraw. Specifically, the
second sentence of the withdrawal order reads as follows: “The Court has considered the
Motion and the record in this action, and, as explained further in its Memorandum
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Decision of this date, finds that good cause appears for the granting of the Motion to
Withdraw, . . . .” Feb. 6, 2014 Order Permitting Attorney to Withdraw Per Dist. Idaho
Loc. Civ. R. 83.6, Dkt. 250, at 1 (emphasis added).
In fact, no written memorandum decision was ever issued because Mr. Coulter’s
motion to withdraw was discussed during a February 6, 2014 telephonic status
conference. During that conference, the Court indicated it would promptly issue an order
granting the motion to withdraw. The Court did, in fact, issue an order that same day, but
the order inadvertently left in a reference to a written “Memorandum Decision of this
date . . . .” Id. The reference to this memorandum decision was put there in the first
place because the Court had been planning to issue a written memorandum decision
addressing the withdrawal motion. After the February 6, 2014 status conference,
however, the Court found it unnecessary to issue a written memorandum decision. The
withdrawal order was not amended to correct the reference to the anticipated written
memorandum. To put it bluntly, there is a mistake in the withdrawal order. Neither party
mentioned this mistake until July 2014 – over five months after the Court issued the
order.
In mid-July, Dr. Sadid emailed the Court’s law clerk, asking about the reference to
a written memorandum decision in the February 6, 2014 order. The clerk informed Dr.
Sadid that there was no written memorandum decision that accompanied the withdrawal
order, and provided him with a copy of the minute entry (Docket 251) for the February 6,
2014 status conference. Dr. Sadid has expressed doubts regarding the accuracy of this
explanation. In his most recent email, Dr. Sadid wrote the following:
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Dear Mrs. Smith
Thank you for sending me a copy of the “Docket 251” stating that
“Telephonic status conference held. [¶ ] The Court will issue an order
granting Ronaldo Coulter’s Motion to Withdraw (Dkt. 239).
In Docket 250, Honorable Judge Winmill wrote, “... as explained further in
its Memorandum Decision of this date, finds that good cause appears for
the granting of the Motion to Withdraw,...”
Perhaps my English is not as good as Honorable Judge Winmill’s English,
however, this statement, in my opinion, states that the court had issued a
Memorandum of Decision supporting the order, prior to the order (Docket
250). I cannot believe that the Court would make such a mistake, as you
wrote in your previous e-mail. If I understand correctly, did the Court
forget within minutes or hours that it had not written a Memorandum of
Decision on that day? Was the order issued without any explanation of its
reasoning?
Since there is nothing in the records to support the Court’s decision made in
Docket 250, I would appreciate if you send me a transcript of the telephonic
conference held on February 6th. I thank you for your immediate attention
in this matter, in advance.
Best regards,
Habib Sadid
July 22, 2014 email from Dr. Habib Sadid to Marci Smith.

DISCUSSION
The Court is issuing this order to confirm that the reference to a written
memorandum in the February 6, 2014 withdrawal order was erroneous. There is,
in fact, no such memorandum. The Court will therefore correct the withdrawal
order.
The Court has the power to correct this error under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(a), which provides as follows: “The court may correct a clerical
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in
a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or
on its own, with or without notice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1. The February 6, 2014 withdrawal order in this case, Docket 250, is amended to
delete this language from the second sentence:
, as explained further in its Memorandum Decision of this date,
2. Otherwise, the February 6, 2014 order shall remain unchanged.

DATED: July 28, 2014

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4