IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 19, 2012
STEVEN MICHAEL SPLAWN, PETITIONER,
MATTHEW CATE, SECRETARY, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: James K. Singleton, Jr. United States District Judge
[Re: Motions at Docket No. 36 and 37]
On May 2, 2012, this Court entered its Memorandum Decision denying
relief under the Amended Petition,*fn1 and on the same
date the Clerk of the Court entered judgment thereon.*fn2
At Docket No. 36 Steven Michael Splawn, a state prisoner
appearing through counsel, has requested this Court decide the Second
Amended § 2254 Petition. At Docket No. 37 Splawn has requested an
extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal.
This Court has reviewed the request at Docket No. 36 and determined that the Court did, in fact, overlook the properly filed with leave Second Amended Petition and ruled on the Amended Petition, not the Second Amended Petition. "The Court may correct a . . . mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice."*fn3 Relief under Rule 60(a) is not limited to clerical mistakes committed only by the clerk; the rule applies to mistakes by the court as well.*fn4
Based on the foregoing, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Request for the Court to Decide Second Amended Petition at Docket No. 36 is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Memorandum Decision at Docket No. 34 and Judgment at Docket No. 35 are VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal at Docket No. 37 is DENIED as moot.
James K. Singleton, Jr.