Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gouveia v. Espinda

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

September 12, 2017

ROYCE C. GOUVEIA, Petitioner,
v.
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.

         ORDER 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

          Susan Oki Mollway, United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION.

         On 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.

         On 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.

         First, 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.

         II. RULE 60(a) STANDARD.

         Rule 60(a) provides:

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).

         III. ANALYSIS.

         Gouveia's § 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 # 8.

         In its 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.

         On 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.