Rowen v. Prasifka

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 ROBERT ROWEN, Case No. 23-cv-02806-DMR

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 9 v. FOR CLARIFICATION

10 WILLIAM PRASIFKA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 66 11 Defendants.

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 18 On July 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “motion for clarification” in which he describes four 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. 21 Rule 72(b)(3) does not apply because that rule addresses objections to magistrate judges’ 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.] 24 Rule 60(a) permits a court to “correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight 25

26 1 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. 27 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)). 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 documents in Exhibit A together comprise the “CMB Decision,” the June 28, 2024 Order referred 15 to Exhibit A as the “CMB Decision.” 16 Second, Plaintiff discusses the court’s citation at page 2, line 12 of the June 28, 2024 17 Order, “See Compl. 2-5.” Mot. 3; see June 28, 2024 Order 2. Plaintiff states, “Plaintiff guesses 18 the reference is to ECF 1” and appears to challenge the court’s citation to the original complaint 19 filed at Docket No. 1, noting that the FAC is the current operative pleading and that the complaint 20 “was moot.” Mot. 3. To clarify, the citation in question is to the original complaint filed at 21 Docket No. 1. Plaintiff does not appear to request other relief with respect to this citation. 22 Third, Plaintiff challenges the court’s references to the CMB Decision, possibly disputing 23 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 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. 5 The extension to file a second amended complaint is extended to September 12, 2024. No 6 || further extensions shall be granted. Plaintiff shall plead his best case. 7 KS DISTR IC> □□ 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. ON □□ Dated: August 29, 2024 &y EDV \S 9 , Ny RDER 2[Yir is 8° ° 10 Sin MD Be 11 Lid ud Ba. Ryu □ □ Oo age Donne © 2 12 PMS □ ay 5 □□ 13 © Lp oS DISTRICL=

15 16

= 17

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