Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00408/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00408-17/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

27

28

- 1 - 08cv408-WHQ-BLM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JOHN DAUGHTERY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv408-WQH-BLM

ORDER

vs.

D. WILSON, S.D.P.D.; E. TAGABAN,

S.D.P.D.; DET. LEMUS, S.D.P.D.; SGT.

GRIFFIN, S.D.P.D.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge: 

On July 1, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. (ECF No. 173).

The docket reflects that all parties were served with the Report and Recommendation

and no objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.

On August 19, 2011, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and granted

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 174). 

On August 19, 2011, Judgment was entered and this case was closed. (ECF No. 175).

On September 13, 2011, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a “Motion

to Reconsider Order Pursuant to FRCP Rule(s) 59 and 60(b).” (ECF No. 177). Plaintiff stated

that he did not receive a copy of the Report and Recommendation, and he “cannot request

reconsideration on other grounds because [he] ha[s] no copy of the Report [and

Recommendation].” Id. at 2.

On September 14, 2011, the Court issued an Order. (ECF No. 178). The Court stated:

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 187 Filed 09/30/11 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

27

28

- 2 - 08cv408-WHQ-BLM

The Court construes Plaintiff’s “Motion to Reconsider Order Pursuant to

FRCP Rule(s) 59 and 60(b)” to be a motion for an extension of time to file a

motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and/or 60(b) after

Plaintiff has had an opportunity to review the Report and Recommendation. So

construed, the motion is granted.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of

time to file a motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and/or

60(b) is GRANTED. (ECF No. 177). No later than November 15, 2011, Plaintiff may file a motion pursuant to Rules 59 and/or 60(b). The Clerk of the

Court shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the Report and Recommendation filed on

July 1, 2011.

Id. at 2.

On September 19, 2011, the Clerk of the Court received a Notice of Appeal of the

August 19, 2011 Order of the Court. (ECF No. 179).

On September 19, 2011, the Clerk of the Court received a “Motion for Relief from

Judgment Pursuant to F.R.A.P. Rule 60(b) or Alternatively, to Alter, Amend Judgment

Pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rules 52(b) and 59(e), 60(b)” (“Motion for Relief from Judgment”).

(ECF No. 183).

“Once an appeal is filed, the district court no longer has jurisdiction to consider motions

to vacate judgment. However, a district court may entertain and decide a Rule 60(b) motion

after notice of appeal is filed if the movant follows a certain procedure, which is to ask the

district court whether it wishes to entertain the motion, or to grant it, and then move this court,

if appropriate, for remand of the case.” Davis v. Yageo Corp., 481 F.3d 661, 685 (9th Cir.

2007) (quotation and citations omitted); see also Crateo, Inc. v. Intermark, Inc., 536 F.2d 862,

869 (9th Cir. 1976) (“Because of the pending appeal, the District Court had no jurisdiction to

enter an order under Rule 60(b). The most the District Court could do was to either indicate

that it would ‘entertain’ such a motion or indicate that it would grant such a motion. If

appellant had received such an indication, its next step would have been to apply to this Court

for a remand.”). Because an appeal has been filed, this Court has no jurisdiction to decide a

motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), although the Court may enter an

order indicating that the Court would entertain a Rule 60(b) motion. See id. Accordingly, the

Court construes the Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 183), to be a motion for an

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 187 Filed 09/30/11 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

27

28

- 3 - 08cv408-WHQ-BLM

indication pursuant to Crateo, 536 F.2d at 869. So construed, the motion is granted, and the

Court “indicate[s] that it would entertain” a Rule 60(b) motion. Id.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for Crateo indication is GRANTED (ECF

No. 183), and this Court indicates it would entertain a Rule 60(b) motion if the case were

remanded by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Court Order to Prison Compelling the

Photocopying of More Than 100 Pages (ECF No. 186) is DENIED without prejudice on the

basis that there are no matters pending before this Court at this stage in the proceedings.

The case remains closed.

DATED: September 30, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 187 Filed 09/30/11 Page 3 of 3