(PS) Hyon v. Brown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Junho Hyon, No. 2:19-cv-00259-KJM-EFB 12 Plaintiff, 13 Vv. ORDER 14 Jerry Brown et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 The court received Mr. Hyon’s filing at ECF No. 31 and construes it as a motion for 18 clarification under Federal Rule 60(a). See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) 19 (“document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed’”) (citations omitted). Mr. Hyon states he 20 was unable to find a document the “US Court of Appeal in San Francisco sent [the court] on 21 September 25, 2020.” The court is unaware of the document Mr. Hyon references, and the court 22 has no record on its docket of any United States Court of Appeals filing on that date. As the court 23 cannot identify an error within its control, the motion is denied. 24 DATED: April 30, 2021.

26 4 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE