Rowen v. Prasifka

Background

The court had previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Robert Rowen’s first amended complaint, which challenged the suspension and revocation of his medical license. The court gave Rowen one final opportunity to amend and ordered him to file any amended complaint by July 29, 2024.

On July 29, Rowen filed a motion for clarification identifying four alleged ambiguities in the earlier order. He cited Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(a), 60(b), and 72(b)(3). Rowen represented himself.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Rule 72(b)(3) did not apply because that rule concerns objections to recommendations by magistrate judges on dispositive pretrial matters. The court explained that this case was originally assigned to the undersigned judge and that all parties had consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

The court treated the first three issues in Rowen’s motion, to the extent possible, as requests for relief under Rule 60(a). That rule permits correction of clerical mistakes or mistakes arising from oversight or omission in an order or other part of the record.

First, the court clarified that “Exhibit A” in the defendants’ request for judicial notice contained both a proposed decision by an administrative law judge with California’s Office of Administrative Hearings and the Medical Board of California’s decision adopting that proposed decision. Together, those documents were referred to in the earlier order as the “CMB Decision.”

Second, the court clarified that its citation to “Compl. 2-5” referred to the original complaint filed at Docket No. 1, rather than the first amended complaint.

Third, the court rejected Rowen’s challenge to the accuracy of the earlier order’s references and pinpoint citations to the CMB Decision, stating that those references were clear. The court denied Rowen’s motion for relief on that issue.

As to Rowen’s remaining challenges, the court considered whether relief was available under Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) permits reconsideration on specified grounds, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction or discharge of a judgment, or extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Rowen had not shown any of those grounds and denied the motion.

Disposition

The court denied Rowen’s motion for clarification to the extent it sought relief under Rule 60(b), and denied relief concerning the challenged citations to the CMB Decision. The court extended the deadline to file a second amended complaint to September 12, 2024, and stated that no further extensions would be granted.