Davila v. Gutierrez

Background

On August 30, 2018, the court issued an order addressing the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court had declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—and stated that Davila would be able to pursue those claims in New York state court.

On May 21, 2020, Davila moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 to clarify the earlier order. He asked the court to vacate the order and re-enter a similar order stating that dismissal of his state-law claims was “without prejudice.” Davila was concerned that, without clarification, the order could be interpreted as barring his state-court claims.

Court’s reasoning

Although Davila referred to Rule 60(b)(6), the court construed his request as one under Rule 60(a) because he repeatedly sought clarification and referred to a possible technical error. Rule 60(a) allows a court to correct a clerical mistake or an oversight in an order and to clarify an order consistently with the court’s original decision.

The court concluded that no clarification was necessary. It stated that the earlier order did not dismiss Davila’s state-law claims with prejudice. The court also explained that it had not decided those claims on their merits, so the earlier order did not have claim-preclusion effects that would prevent Davila from pursuing them in state court.

Ruling

The court denied Davila’s motion. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Docket Number 83 and mail Davila a copy of the order. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

The opinion notes that page 3 of the motion was missing when the court received it and that the court decided the motion based on the materials then available.