Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01944/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01944-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Forrest Kendrid
Plaintiff
Karandeep Singh
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FORREST KENDRID,

Plaintiff,

v.

KARANDEEP SINGH,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-CV-1944-JAM-DMC-P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 16) for 

reconsideration of the court’s January 8, 2020, order (ECF No. 8). 

The court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment under Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60. Generally, a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment is 

appropriately brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Backlund v. Barnhart, 

778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985) (discussing reconsideration of summary judgment); see also

Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 458-59 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Under Rule 60(a), the court may grant reconsideration of final judgments and any 

order based on clerical mistakes. Relief under this rule can be granted on the court’s own motion 

and at any time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). However, once an appeal has been filed and 

docketed, leave of the appellate court is required to correct clerical mistakes while the appeal is 

Case 2:19-cv-01944-JAM-DMC Document 17 Filed 02/13/20 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

pending. See id.

Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment and any 

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

evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered within ten days of 

entry of judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an opposing party. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(3). A motion for reconsideration on any of these grounds must be brought 

within one year of entry of judgment or the order being challenged. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 

Under Rule 60(b), the court may also grant reconsideration if: (1) the judgment is void; (2) the 

judgement has been satisfied, released, or discharged, an earlier judgment has been reversed or 

vacated, or applying the judgment prospectively is no longer equitable; and (3) any other reason 

that justifies relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)-(6). A motion for reconsideration on any of these 

grounds must be brought “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 

In this case, plaintiff seeks reconsideration because the court referred to him as a 

“prisoner” instead of “civil detainee.” According to plaintiff’s complaint, he is indeed a civil 

detainee pursuant to California Penal Code § 1026. Given the clerical error contained in the 

court’s order, reconsideration under Rule 60(a) is warranted and plaintiff’s motion will be 

granted. Plaintiff will in future be referred to as a “civil detainee.” Substantively, the court’s 

January 8, 2020, order remains in effect.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration (ECF No. 16) is granted to the extent the court made a clerical error in referring 

to plaintiff as a “prisoner” instead of a “civil detainee.”

Dated: February 13, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-01944-JAM-DMC Document 17 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 2