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)

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. §

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