Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00019/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00019-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE GARDUNO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv19-WQH-BGS

ORDER

vs.

EDGAR ROGEL; J. DUENAS; L.

CESENA; R. FREGOSO; and

SHEILA NAGARAJ,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

On January 3, 2013, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint

containing Bivens and RICO claims against all Defendants. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff

alleged that “Defendants exhibited a reckless indifference and wanton disregard for

[his] First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights” by stopping him at the border and

subsequently bringing criminal charges against him. Id. at 3.

On July 16, 2013, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss, which stated: “Federal

Defendants ... bring its motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (ECF No. 7 at 1). In the Memorandum of Points

and Authorities, Defendants moved for dismissal of the RICO claim (claim two) as to

all Defendants, and dismissal of the Bivens claim (claim one) only as to Defendant

AUSA Naganaj. (ECF No. 7-1 at 4).

Plaintiff did not file an opposition or otherwise respond to the Motion to Dismiss.

- 1 - 13cv19-WQH-BGS

Case 3:13-cv-00019-WQH-BGS Document 10 Filed 08/26/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On August 21, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants’ unopposed

Motion to Dismiss, and dismissing the Complaint without prejudice. (ECF No. 8). 

Later that day, the Clerk of the Court issued Judgment in favor of Defendants. (ECF

No. 9).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) provides: “The court may correct a clerical

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).

Pursuant to the unopposed Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants and Rule

60(a), the Court hereby VACATES the August 21, 2013 Judgment (ECF No. 9). The

Clerk of the Court shall reopen the case. The August 21, 2013 Order (ECF No 8) is

amended as follows: “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by

Defendants (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED. Claim one of the Complaint is DISMISSED

without prejudice as to Defendant AUSA Nagaraj. Claim two of the Complaint is

DISMISSED without prejudice as to all Defendants.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 26, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13cv19-WQH-BGS

Case 3:13-cv-00019-WQH-BGS Document 10 Filed 08/26/13 Page 2 of 2