United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ROYCE C. GOUVEIA, Petitioner,
NOLAN ESPINDA, Director of the Department of Public Safety for the State of Hawaii; and DOUG CHIN, Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, Respondents.
ENJOINING REPROSECUTION OR RETRIAL OF GOUVEIA; ORDER
DIRECTING STATE COURT TO DISMISS PENDING CRIMINAL CASE WITH
PREJUDICE AND TO RELEASE GOUVEIA FROM ALL CONDITIONS OF
SUPERVISED RELEASE; ORDER STAYING ORDER DIRECTING STATE COURT
TO DISMISS PENDING CRIMINAL CASE WITH PREJUDICE; ORDER
GRANTING CERTIFICATES OF APPEALABILITY
Oki Mollway, United States District Judge
August 25, 2017, this court issued an Order Granting Habeas
Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See ECF
No. 22. Judgment in favor of Petitioner Royce C. Gouveia was
entered the same day. See ECF No. 23.
August 29, 2017, Gouveia sought to amend the order and
judgment pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See ECF No. 24. That motion is granted in
part. The court clarifies here its earlier ruling.
the State of Hawaii is enjoined from reprosecuting or
retrying Gouveia for the manslaughter charge at issue in the
state court criminal case numbered 1PC121001474. Second, the
court orders the State of Hawaii to dismiss with prejudice
the state court criminal case against Gouveia numbered
1PC121001474 and orders that he be relieved of all conditions
of supervised pretrial release. Third, the court stays the
order requiring dismissal of the criminal case until such
time as this case becomes final, meaning that all appeals of
this court's orders and judgment have been adjudicated.
The court also grants the parties a certificate of
appealability to allow them to appeal this court's
determination that the mistrial was not supported by manifest
necessity and that the sealed jury verdict was not a final
verdict for double jeopardy purposes.
RULE 60(a) STANDARD.
The court may correct a clerical mistake or 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. But
after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and
while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only
with the appellate court's leave.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). Rule 60(a) may not be the only vehicle
for the clarification Gouveia seeks; Gouveia possibly could
have sought relief under Rule 59 or Rule 60(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Still, Rule 60(a) does allow this
“court to clarify a judgment in order to correct a
failure to memorialize part of its decision, to reflect the
necessary implications of the original order, to ensure that
the court's purpose is fully implemented, or to permit
enforcement.” Tattersalls, Ltd. v. DeHaven,
745 F.3d 1294, 1298 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotation
marks and citation omitted).
§ 2241 motion asked this court to “order that the
State of Hawaii give effect to the jury's acquittal,
enter judgment in accordance with that verdict, and dismiss
Cr. No. 12-1-1474 with prejudice, and grant any other relief
to which the petitioner is entitled.” ECF No. 1, PageID
order of August 25, 2017, this court granted Gouveia's
§ 2241 motion, stating that “Gouveia may not be
retried fo manslaughter in violation of section 707-702(1)(a)
of Hawaii Revised Statutes.” ECF No. 22, PageID # 644.
August 29, 2017, Gouveia moved under Rule 60(a) for
clarification of the court's order, arguing that this
court had not explicitly barred any retrial of Gouveia for
manslaughter, had not ordered the dismissal of the
state-court proceedings with prejudice, and had not ordered
the state to immediately release Gouveia from all pretrial
release conditions imposed on him. See,
e.g., ECF No. 24, PageID # 647. This court grants
the motion in part, ruling that the following clarification
reflects the necessary implications of the court's order
of August 25, 2017, and ensures ...