Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00020/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00020-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

The notice of appeal was signed by plaintiff on August 1, 2007, and apparently

1

delivered to prison officials for mailing on August 2, 2007.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL E. DIAZ, D.C. No. CIV S-07-0020-WBS-CMK-P

C.A. No. 07-16420

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

D.K. SISTO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to

plaintiff’s notice of appeal filed in the district court on August 7, 2007.1

Plaintiff initiated this action with a document entitled “Motion for Emergency

TRO Preliminary Injunction Per Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. # 65,” filed on January 4, 2007. Plaintiff

did not pay the district court filing fees or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On January

10, 2007, the court issued an order informing plaintiff that, in order to commence an action, he

must file a complaint as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3. The court dismissed

Case 2:07-cv-00020-WBS-CMK Document 23 Filed 08/24/07 Page 1 of 3
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

The complaint filed on February 20, 2007, referred to additional pages which were 2

not attached. It appears that plaintiff was attempting to correct this omission with his February

27, 2007, filing. 

2

plaintiff’s initial document with leave to file a complaint under Rule 3 and directed the Clerk of

the Court to forward to plaintiff the court’s form for a civil rights complaint by a prisoner. The

court also directed plaintiff to either pay the filing fees or file an application for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was required to file a complaint and resolve fees within 30 days of

the date of service of the January 10, 2007, order and was warned that failure to comply could

result in dismissal of the action. 

Plaintiff had not complied within the time specified in the January 10, 2007, order

and, on February 16, 2007, the court issued an order directing plaintiff to show cause within 15

days why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with the court’s

order. Plaintiff responded by filing a form civil rights complaint on February 20, 2007, and an

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on February 27, 2007. Plaintiff also filed a

second form complaint on February 27, 2007. On February 28, 2007, the court issued an order

2

discharging the order to show cause and noting that plaintiff’s February 20, 2007, complaint was

defective. Because plaintiff’s February 27, 2007, application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and corrected complaint had not been docketed at the time this order was signed, the

court incorrectly noted that plaintiff had still not resolved fees. The order gave plaintiff another

30 days to file a complaint which complied with Rule 3 and to resolve fees. 

On April 17, 2007, the court issued findings and recommendations that this action

be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the court’s orders. Two days

later – on April 19, 2007 – plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On July 5, 2007, the court

issued an order adopting the April 17, 2007, findings and recommendations and issued judgment

of dismissal. Plaintiff’s February 27, 2007, and April 19, 2007, filings were overlooked when

the findings and recommendations, order adopting, and final judgment were issued. 

Case 2:07-cv-00020-WBS-CMK Document 23 Filed 08/24/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

In light of the foregoing procedural history, the court concludes that the July 5,

2007, judgment was issued in error and hereby expresses its willingness to sua sponte correct the

error. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) allows the district court to sua sponte grant relief

from a judgment issued in error during the pendency of an appeal so long as the appeal has not

been docketed in the appellate court. After the appeal has been docketed, Rule 60(a) provides

that relief from judgment may only be granted with leave of the appellate court. Because

plaintiff’s appeal has been docketed, the undersigned hereby requests leave of the appellate court

in order to sua sponte grant relief from the July 5, 2007, judgment. If the appellate court returns

jurisdiction over this case to the district court, the court will vacate the July 5, 2007, judgment

and refer the matter to the magistrate judge to review plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and his complaints. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The district court expresses its willingness to sua sponte grant relief from

the July 5, 2007, judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a).

2. The district court requests leave of the appellate court to do so; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the

Motions Unit of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

DATED: August 24, 2007

Case 2:07-cv-00020-WBS-CMK Document 23 Filed 08/24/07 Page 3 of 3