McGee v. Milpitas Police Department
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:23-cv-02559
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In McGee v. Milpitas Police Department, Judge Demarchi denied McGee’s Rule 60(a) motion because it sought merits reconsideration, not correction of a clerical mistake.
Anthony McGee’s request for relief from the judgment was denied; the order did not change the prior dismissal of his case.
What happened
In McGee v. Milpitas Police Department, Anthony McGee, who represented himself, asked the court for relief from the final judgment under Rule 60(a). He filed the motion on November 16, 2023, the same day he appealed all orders and final judgments in the case.
The court said the motion challenged its earlier decisions denying McGee’s requests for default and dismissing his case. Rule 60(a) allows correction of clerical mistakes, but the court said it does not allow a change to the judgment’s intended legal effect. The court also said that, even if it treated the filing as a motion under Rule 60(b), the pending appeal prevented it from granting that request.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied McGee’s motion for relief from judgment. The order did not reconsider the merits of the earlier dismissal.
The detailed version
- McGee v. Milpitas Police Department · No. 5:23-cv-02559
- Virginia Demarchi
- Nov. 21, 2023
Background
Anthony McGee, who was representing himself, filed a motion titled “Motion for Relief [from] Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(a)” on November 16, 2023. On the same day, he filed a notice of appeal covering “all orders and final judgments in the case.”
The opinion states that the court had previously denied McGee’s motions for default and dismissed his case. McGee’s new motion sought reconsideration of those decisions on the merits.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to correct a clerical mistake or clarify an omission in a judgment. The court explained that the rule does not permit a change in the judgment’s intended legal effect. Because McGee’s motion sought reconsideration of the court’s earlier decisions rather than correction of a clerical mistake, the court held that Rule 60(a) was not a proper basis for his request.
The court added that, even if it construed the filing as a motion under Rule 60(b), it lacked jurisdiction—legal authority to act—because McGee had already filed a notice of appeal.
Disposition
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied McGee’s motion for relief from judgment. The order addressed only that motion and did not revisit the merits of the earlier decisions dismissing the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.