The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 Junho Hyon, No. 2:19-cv-00259-KJM-EFB
12 Plaintiff,
13 Vv. ORDER
14 | Jerry Brown et al.,
15 Defendant.
16
17 The court received Mr. Hyon’s filing at ECF No. 31 and construes it as a motion for
18 | clarification under Federal Rule 60(a). See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
19 || (“document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed’”) (citations omitted). Mr. Hyon states he
20 || was unable to find a document the “US Court of Appeal in San Francisco sent [the court] on
21 || September 25, 2020.” The court is unaware of the document Mr. Hyon references, and the court
22 | has no record on its docket of any United States Court of Appeals filing on that date. As the court
23 || cannot identify an error within its control, the motion is denied.
24 | DATED: April 30, 2021.
26
4 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28