Nguyen v. Del Toro

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 THIEN CHI HUU NGUYEN, Case No. 3:25-cv-05100-TMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT AND 9 REOPENING CASE UNDER RULE 60(A) v. 10 CARLOS DEL TORO, et al., 11 Defendant. 12 13

14 I. ORDER 15 This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On May 13, 2025, this Court 16 dismissed Mr. Nguyen’s claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), 17 reasoning that Mr. Nguyen failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Dkt. 14. 18 The Court issued a Judgment and closed the case. Dkt. 15. 19 On July 30, 2025, Mr. Nguyen filed a new case against Mr. Del Toro and moved for 20 leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Nguyen v. Del Toro, 3:25-cv-05667-TMC, 21 Dkt. 1. The new case is based on the same underlying events as the previous case. See id. 22 Mr. Nguyen explained that he was “refiling this case with a more complete explanation” because 23 of the previous dismissal. Id., Dkt. 1-2 at 2. His complaint in that matter was subsequently 24 referred to this Court. Id., Dkt. 4. 1 Upon further review of the dockets in both cases, the Court discovered that prior to 2 dismissing his complaint in the present case, it had failed to fully review the “Statement of 3 Claims” included as Exhibit 2 to Mr. Nguyen’s complaint. Dkt. 10-2. Having reviewed this

4 exhibit, the Court now concludes that Plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to state a plausible claim 5 for relief, and its earlier dismissal was erroneous. 6 Under Rule 60(a), the Court may sua sponte correct a judgment based on “a mistake 7 arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found,” so long as no appeal has been 8 docketed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) (emphasis added); Mitchell v. Piffer, No. 218CV2949WBSEFBP, 9 2021 WL 1264756, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2021). The Court may make such a correction even 10 when doing so resuscitates a claim the Court previously dismissed. See id. (reviving, and then 11 remanding, a state court claim); Reno Contracting, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 12 No. 18-CV-0450 W (JLB), 2019 WL 7877825 (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2019) (reopening case to

13 address an overlooked counterclaim); Crespin v. City of Albuquerque, No. CV 22-0811 KG-KK, 14 2023 WL 1927725 (D.N.M. Feb. 10, 2023) (reopening case after court overlooked an IFP filing 15 fee paid a month before dismissal). Because the Court’s previous dismissal arose from oversight 16 of one of Mr. Nguyen’s exhibits, it may and should correct that error through Rule 60(a). 17 II. CONCLUSION The Court therefore VACATES its Order (Dkt. 14) and Judgment (Dkt. 15) dismissing 18 Mr. Nguyen’s claims and closing the case. The complaint previously filed on April 3, 2025 at 19 Dkt. 10 shall be the operative complaint. 20 Because Mr. Nguyen’s claims will proceed under this original case number, the Clerk is 21 directed to close the second case, 3:25-cv-05667-TMC. If Mr. Nguyen would like to file the 22 documents he submitted in the second lawsuit, he may file those as part of an amended 23 complaint in this suit instead. 24 l The Clerk shall issue a summons if Mr. Nguyen has previously provided a proposed 2 summons. Otherwise, Mr. Nguyen must submit a proposed summons for issuance by the Clerk 3 pursuant to Rule 4(a)-(b). If Mr. Nguyen would like the Court to assist with service of the 4 summons under Rule 4(c), he may inform the Court of this after submitting a proposed 5 summons. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). 6 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 7 any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 8 Dated this 17th day of September, 2025. ao CC 10 Tiffany M. Cartwright United States District Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24