Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00476/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00476-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert A. Cuevas, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

John Miranda, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 04-CV-0476-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

The Court is in receipt of the parties' Motion for Clarification (Doc. 37). The Court's

March 24, 2005 Order (Doc. 33) granting the Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for

Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 24) expressly stated that the Federal Defendants

were the parties to be dismissed. The Clerk of Court, in error, interpreted that Order as

dismissing all Defendants thereby terminating the case. Until the parties' recent motion, the

Court was unaware of this error. Although the Order still stands as entered, the Judgment

Dismissing the Complaint in its entirety (Doc. 34) is incorrect. Defendants John Miranda,

City of San Luis, City of San Luis Police Department, Eddie Bejarano, and Alex Ruiz should

have remained active as they were not parties to the Motion to Dismiss that was granted.

The Court has been informed that the Plaintiff is currently appealing the March 24,

2005 Order along with the Judgment entered dismissing the Complaint. The Order did not

contain language from Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicating that it

was final though it failed to resolve all claims against all parties. The Court did not include

Case 2:04-cv-00476-PGR Document 38 Filed 01/12/07 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

- 2 -

such language because said Order was not intended to be one immediately appealable until

the parties made the requisite showing of a "pressing need" for the Order to stand as a Final

Judgment. See, e.g., Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir.

1981). 

The Court no longer has jurisdiction to correct the clerical error made by the Clerk of

the Court as this matter is now being appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(a) states that clerical mistakes in judgments or orders arising from oversight

or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on the motion of any party. However,

"[d]uring the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes maybe so corrected before the appeal is

docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so

corrected with leave of the appellate court." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). Since this matter is

currently on appeal, this Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to correct the error until the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remands the matter for the limited purpose of remedying this

mistake. Once the Court receives such a mandate, the Judgment will be vacated and the

Plaintiff may immediately pursue his claims against the San Luis Defendants without further

delay. Therefore,

The Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification (Doc. ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED

in part. The Court will await the Ninth Circuit's Order restoring jurisdiction for the purpose

of correcting the clerical error in entering judgment and dismissing the complaint in its

entirety.

DATED this 12th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-00476-PGR Document 38 Filed 01/12/07 Page 2 of 2