Opinion
Case No. 3:14-cv-00011-MMD-WGC
12-10-2015
EDWARD FINLEY, and LEODIAS EDWARDS, Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
I. SUMMARY
Before the Court are identical motions to vacate judgement filed by Plaintiffs Leodias Edwards and Edward Finley. (Dkt. nos. 43, 44.) The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' motions and Defendants' response. (Dkt. no. 45.) For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs' motions are denied.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, who at the time in question were inmates at the Lovelock Correctional Center, brought a lawsuit alleging various constitutional and statutory violations stemming from the Nevada Department of Correction's ("NDOC") decision to move them from a kosher meal to a new "Common Fair Diet." (Dkt. no. 1-3 at 7.) The parties filed cross motions for summary judgement (dkt. nos. 21, 22, 27), and the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") recommending Plaintiffs' motions be denied and Defendants' motion be granted (dkt. no. 36.). Plaintiffs filed objections and, after review, this Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's R&R in full. (Dkt. no. 41.)
Plaintiffs now ask the Court to vacate its judgment because, they argue, the Court overlooked a piece of evidence. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the Court either ignored or overlooked a letter of kosher certification ("certification letter") from a Rabbi Yisroel Rosskamm to NDOC dated August 27, 2012. (Dkt. no. 43 at 11.) Plaintiffs cite Rule 60(b)(1) as a basis for their motions.
III. DISCUSSION
The Court may relieve a party from a final judgment for "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). The determination of a mistake or excusable neglect is "purely a matter of discretion with the trial court." Smith v. Stone, 308 F.2d 15, 18 (9th Cir. 1962)
As an initial matter, Plaintiffs are not arguing that the Court should vacate its judgment due to a mistake by either the parties or their counsel. Rather, their argument is that the Court either ignored or misinterpreted evidence. While Defendants suggest that Rule 60(b)(1) applies only to mistakes made by parties, the Ninth Circuit has clearly stated that the rule applies to courts as well. Fidellity Fed. Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp., 387 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2004) ("The district court has discretion to correct a judgment for mistake or inadvertence, either on the part of counsel or the court itself."); Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 350 (9th Cir. 1999) (Rule 60(b) is not limited to parties and "may include mistake and inadvertence by the judge."). Therefore, the Court will evaluate Plaintiffs' claim that it mistakenly overlooked a piece of evidence.
Both the Magistrate Judge and this Court considered the certification letter as part of their analysis. The Magistrate Judge cited the certification letter in his R&R. (Dkt. no. 36 at 10.) This Court referenced the certification letter in its order adopting the R&R. (Dkt. no. 41 at 4.) Plaintiffs' argument as to the certification letter was considered by both the Magistrate Judge and this Court. Plaintiffs were put on the Common Fair Diet on June 15, 2012. (Dkt. no. 1 at 7.) Defendants provided evidence that from its inception, the Common Fair Diet was meant to be kosher and was therefore planned and implemented under rabbinical supervision. (Dkt. no. 27-1 ¶¶ 5-11.) The group supervising the preparation of the meals issued the certification letter on August 27, 2012. (Dkt. no. 43 at 11.) Plaintiffs did not offer any evidence or argument to show that consuming the meals prepared under rabbinical supervision, even before the certification letter was issued, burdened their sincere religious beliefs.
In sum, the Court did not mistakenly ignore the certification letter when it adopted the R&R and granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgement; the Court considered the certification letter but rejected Plaintiffs' arguments.
IV. CONCLUSION
It is therefore ordered that Plaintiffs' motions to vacate judgment (dkt. nos. 43, 44) are denied.
DATED THIS 10th day of December 2015.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE