Bishop v. Rios, Jr. et al

Filing 13

ORDER Denying 11 Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 04/16/2014. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 MAURICE LEONARD BISHOP, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 Case No. 1:10-cv-00065-AWI-SMS PC v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT H.A. RIOS, JR., et al., Defendants. (Doc. 11) 15 16 17 Plaintiff Maurice Leonard Bishop is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal 19 Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On January 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking 20 time credit calculated from the date of his federal detainer, pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. ยง 21 22 3584(a). On February 19, 2010, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's Bivens claim be dismissed since when a prisoner questions the legality or duration of his custody, the only remedy 23 24 25 26 available under federal law is a petition for habeas corpus. The District Judge filed an order adopting the findings and recommendations on April 16, 2010. On June 8, 2010, explaining that his relocation to a new prison had delayed his receipt of the 27 findings and recommendations, Plaintiff filed objections, contending that his claim was properly 28 brought as a Bivens action since he did not seek an adjustment of his term of imprisonment, but 1 1 simply the determination of the proper onset date of the sentence. The Court will consider Plaintiff's 2 motion as seeking relief from judgment under F.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) based on mistake and excusable 3 neglect. 4 5 6 Plaintiff argues that the Court misunderstood the nature of his claim. It did not. As discussed in the findings and recommendations, determining the date on which Plaintiff began to accrue credit toward his federal sentence of imprisonment necessarily demonstrates the invalidity of 7 the sentence or duration. This is because calculating the days on which Plaintiff must be imprisoned 8 9 from the date of his federal detainer, instead of from whatever date authorities presently calculate the 10 length of Plaintiff's federal sentence, would necessary change Plaintiff's release date, and thus, the 11 duration of his sentence. The Court properly concluded that it could only address this legal question 12 in response to a petition for habeas corpus. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005); 13 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. 14 denied, 498 U.S. 1126 (1991). Thus, the Court was required to dismiss the Bivens action. 15 16 17 Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, denominated as objections to the findings and recommendations, is hereby DENIED. 18 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 16, 2014 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?