Jackson v. Palombo et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 23 Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/26/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

RICHARD JACKSON,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
MIKE PALOMBO, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-cv-00986-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 23)

15
16

I.

Procedural Background

17

Plaintiff Richard Jackson (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, proceeded pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 4, 2014, the Magistrate

19

Judge dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint, filed on June 27, 2013, with leave to amend. In

20

order to determine whether or not the action was barred by the favorable termination rule,

21

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78, 125 S.Ct. 1242 (2005), the Magistrate Judge expressly

22

directed Plaintiff to address, if he could do so in good faith, his failure to allege that his time

23

credits had been restored or that his disciplinary conviction had been overturned or otherwise

24

invalidated. (ECF No. 13, p. 4.)

25

On June 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On June 19, 2014, the

26

Magistrate Judge screened the complaint and issued Findings and Recommendations that this

27

action be dismissed, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s

28

screening order. In particular, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff had failed to comply
1

1

with the direction to allege whether or not his time credits had been restored or that his

2

disciplinary conviction was overturned or otherwise invalidated. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff

3

objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations on July 3, 2014.

4

On July 15, 2014, following consideration of Plaintiff’s objections, the undersigned

5

adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full and dismissed this action without prejudice.

6

(ECF No. 19.) On the same date, the Clerk of the Court entered judgment. (ECF No. 20.)

7

On July 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 21.) On July 31,

8

2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

9

Procedure 59(e), finding that Plaintiff had not provided the Court with a valid ground to alter or

10

amend the judgment, such as newly discovered evidence, clear error or a change in the

11

controlling law. Further, the Court found that Plaintiff essentially confirmed he could not allege,

12

in good faith, that his good time credits were restored or that his prison disciplinary conviction

13

was overturned or otherwise invalidated. (ECF No. 22.)

14

On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 23.)

15

II.

16

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the court to relieve a party from an order

Motion for Reconsideration

17

for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy

18

to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances exist.

19

Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotations marks and citation omitted).

20

The moving party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control. Id.

21

(quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that

22

Plaintiff show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not

23

exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and

24

“why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.”

25

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

26

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

27

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,

28

Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations
2

1

marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a

2

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already

3

considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d

4

1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

5

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration sets forth no grounds entitling him to

6

reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing this action. Rather, Plaintiff’s moving papers

7

primarily concern the underlying merits of his disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in a

8

guilty finding and the forfeiture of good time credits. (ECF No. 23, pp. 1-3.) Additionally, the

9

motion includes exhibits demonstrating that Plaintiff has been denied restoration of his good

10

time credits. (ECF No. 23, Exs. A, B.) By his motion and exhibits, Plaintiff has confirmed that

11

he cannot allege, in good faith, that his good time credits were restored. As Plaintiff’s claims in

12

this action are barred by the favorable termination rule, the Court finds no basis to grant Plaintiff

13

relief from the judgment. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81-82.

14

III.

15

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on May 21, 2015, is

Conclusion and Order

16

DENIED.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

May 26, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3