Stewart Manago v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 89

ORDER DENYING Reconsideration of Order Dismissing Case as to Defendants Gutierrez and Cantu signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/29/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

STEWART MANAGO,

11

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER DISMISSING CASE AS TO
DEFENDANTS GUTIERREZ AND CANTU

v.

13

Case No. 1:11-cv-01269-LJO-SMS

S.F. GONZALEZ, former warden; et al.,

14

Defendants.
(Doc. 87)

15
16

Plaintiff Stewart Manago moves for reconsideration, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 59(e), of this

17
18

Court's February 20, 2014 order dismissing this § 1983 civil rights case as to Defendants Gutierrez

19

and Cantu1 as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Plaintiff maintains that, contrary

20

to the Court's conclusions of law, his action for damages should stand despite the fact that favorable

21
resolution of the only remaining claim in this case, that Plaintiff was erroneously validated as a

22
23

BGF gang member in violation of his first amendment rights, would necessarily change the

24

duration of Plaintiff's imprisonment. The Court denies Plaintiff's reconsideration motion.

25

Since the factual and procedural background of this case was fully set forth in the

26

Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations, it will not be repeated here. In summary,

27
28

1

The other Defendants in this matter were dismissed by a December 11, 2013 order. Doc. 66.

1

1

following screening, only one issue remained against Defendants W. Gutierrez and Cantu: whether

2

Defendants Turmezei, Adame, Sigston, Steadman, Bryant, Stelfer, W. Gutierrez, and A. Cantu

3

violated Plaintiff's First Amendment right by validating Plaintiff as a BGF member in retaliation for

4

Plaintiff's filing of grievance complaints against staff and untoward prison conditions. Docs. 42

5

and 47. Plaintiff sought monetary damages and expungement of his allegedly false validation as a

6

member of the BGF. Doc. 42. The gang validation, a disciplinary action, increased Plaintiff's term

7
of imprisonment, delaying his anticipated release date from June 2013 to October 2016.
8
9

Because the requested expungement of the BGF gang validation would necessarily have

10

shortened the term of Plaintiff's imprisonment and resulted in his immediate release, the only

11

appropriate remedy was a writ of habeas corpus. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. If a prison

12

disciplinary action "'aris[es] out of the same facts stands and is fundamentally inconsistent with the

13
14

unlawful behavior for which section 1983 damages are sought, the 1983 action must be dismissed.'"
Cunningham v. Gates, 312 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 960 (2003),

15
16
17

quoting Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996).
Reconsideration of a court's order is an "extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in

18

the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources." Kona Enterprises, Inc. v.

19

Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000), quoting 12 James Wm. Moore, Moore's Federal

20

Practice § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 2000). "[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent

21

highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,

22
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in controlling law." Kona Enterprises,
23
24
25

229 F.3d at 890, quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff does not contend that reconsideration is merited based on new evidence or an

26

intervening change in law. He merely reargues the dismissal motion, asserting that his request for

27

an injunction ordering removal of his gang validation, is an exception the Heck bar. His argument

28
2

1

is incorrect. Heck bars a prisoner's suit under § 1983 whenever nullification of disciplinary

2

procedures would result in a reduction of the length of the prisoner's confinement. Wilkinson v.

3

Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 83-84 (2005).

4
5
6

"[A] motion for reconsideration is properly denied when the movant fails to establish any
reason justifying relief." Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985). Using a
reconsideration motion to reargue the points that the judge rejected in the original order is

7
improper. American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. North American Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892,
8
9
10
11
12
13

899 (9th Cir. 2001). A party cannot have relief merely because he or she is unhappy with the
judgment. See, e.g., Khan v. Fasano, 194 F.Supp.2d 1134, 1136 (S.D.Cal. 2001).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED
Dated: May 29, 2014
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3