Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02280/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02280-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of 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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD SIALOI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 11-cv-2280-W(BLM)

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION [DOC. 50]

v.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 

Defendants.

On October 1, 2011, Plaintiffs commenced this civil-rights action against

Defendants, which includes the City of San Diego and several police officers, arising

from a contact between the officers and Plaintiffs on October 2, 2010. On December

9, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment. Defendants now move for clarification regarding the summary-judgment

order. They also append a request for reconsideration to the aforementioned motion. 

Plaintiffs oppose.

The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral

argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.1). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES

Defendants’ motion for clarification.

-1- 11cv2280

Case 3:11-cv-02280-JLS-KSC Document 59 Filed 03/03/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) states, in pertinent part, that “[c]lerical

mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising

from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own

initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court

orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). Though “[s]ubstantive changes of mind by a court

cannot be effected through Rule 60(a) . . . [a] court’s failure to memorialize part of its

decision . . . is a clerical error.” Buchanan v. United States, 755 F. Supp. 319, 324 (D.

Or. 1990); see also Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987). 

“Rule 60(a) can be used to conform a judgment to a prior ruling.” Id. 

Once judgment has been entered, reconsideration may be sought by filing a

motion under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend

a judgment) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (motion forrelief from judgment).

See Hinton v. Pac. Enter., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993). Defendants invoke Rule

60(b) in their motion.

Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a

showing of exceptional circumstances. Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d

1038, 1044 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Ben Sager Chem. Int’l v. E. Targosz & Co., 560 F.2d

805, 809 (7th Cir. 1977)). Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration

based on:(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect;(2) newly discovered

evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s

decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has

been satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). That last

prong is “used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to

be utilized onlywhere extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely

action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Delay v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039,

1044 (9th Cir. 2007).

//

-2- 11cv2280

Case 3:11-cv-02280-JLS-KSC Document 59 Filed 03/03/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

II. ANALYSIS

Defendants frame their request for clarification as follows: “the clarification at

issue is whether or not the acts arising from the officers [sic] efforts to find a second gun

was directly contemplated by the Court as a part of its denial of qualified immunity.” 

(Defs.’ Mot. 8:21–9:5.) They explain that “[t]his clarification will aid all parties in

preparing for trial.” (Id.) Alternatively, Defendants also add that “the clarification of

the second gun and the actions related thereto by these officers, may provide an

opportunity for this Court to reconsider the denial of qualified immunity for these

defendants.” (Id.) Plaintiffs respond arguing that Defendants’ motion “simply” and

“explicitly” repeats arguments presented in the summary-judgment motion, pointing out

that the CAD report contained the information regarding the gun in addition to other

descriptions about the suspects. (Pls.’ Opp’n 3:15–27.) The Court agrees with

Plaintiffs.

Defendants attempt to justify qualified immunity based on the officers’ search for

a second gun, which the evidence unequivocally showed was reported. However, the

two guns were not reported in isolation. As Plaintiffs astutely point out, in addition to

the report of the two guns, the CAD report also included information that the suspects

were two black males, one wearing a brown T-shirt and the other wearing a longsleeved T-shirt. It appears that what Defendants are attempting to do is justify their

conduct based on bits and pieces of information cherry picked from the CAD report. 

However, the Court’s summary-judgment order considered the report describing the the

guns and suspects in its entirety. It is not within the Court’s authority to do otherwise. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In short, questions of fact remain whether the officers’

conduct was lawful in light of all of the information that the officers had at the time of

the incident. 

Additionally, Defendants fail to provide any legal authority that permits a court

orlaw enforcementto cherry pick the favorable information contained in certain pieces

of evidence to excuse potentially unlawful conduct through the doctrine of qualified

-3- 11cv2280

Case 3:11-cv-02280-JLS-KSC Document 59 Filed 03/03/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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

immunity. After reviewing Defendants’ summary-judgment motion, Defendants also

failed to provide any such legal authority in their summary-judgment motion.

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

Because Defendants fail to demonstrate entitlement to clarification and

reconsideration under Rule 60, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for

clarification. (Doc. 50.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: March 3, 2014

HON. THOMAS J. WHELAN

United States District Court

Southern District of California

-4- 11cv2280

Case 3:11-cv-02280-JLS-KSC Document 59 Filed 03/03/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4