McGee v. Milpitas Police Department

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 ANTHONY MCGEE, Case No. 23-cv-02559-VKD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 10 v. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 11 MILPITAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 49 Defendants. 12

13 14 On November 16, 2023, plaintiff Anthony McGee, who is representing himself, filed a 15 “Motion for Relief [from] Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(a).” Dkt. No. 49. The same day, 16 Mr. McGee filed a notice of appeal of “all orders and final judgments in the case” to the U.S. 17 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Dkt. No. 50. 18 Mr. McGee’s motion requests reconsideration on the merits of the Court’s previous 19 decisions denying his motions for default and dismissing his case, rather than the correction of a 20 clerical mistake. See Dkt. No. 49. This is not a proper subject for a motion under Rule 60(a) of 21 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 22 2012) (“We have consistently interpreted Rule 60(a) to allow a district court to correct omissions 23 so long as those corrections are limited to clarification of matters intended to be implied or 24 subsumed by the original judgment, rather than a change of course or a modification to the 25 intended legal effect of a judgment.”). Even if the Court were to construe Mr. McGee’s filing as a 26 motion under Rule 60(b), it lacks jurisdiction to grant it because a notice of appeal has been filed. 27 Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir. 1984). 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: November 21, 2023 3 . 28 ‘ Vuisuin®, QeManrcbe VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28