Jackson v. Palombo et al
Filing
26
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Third 25 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 08/09/2016. (Flores, E)
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 THIRD
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 25)
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 with
1
1
the direction to allege whether or not his time credits had been restored or that his disciplinary
2
conviction was overturned or otherwise invalidated. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff objected to the
3
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 a second motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 23.) On
15
May 27, 2015, the Court denied that motion, finding that it set forth no grounds entitling Plaintiff
16
to reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing this action. Specifically, that motion included
17
exhibits demonstrating that Plaintiff had been denied restoration of his time credits, and thus
18
Plaintiff again confirmed that he cannot allege, in good faith, that his time credits were restored.
19
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s third motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 25.)
20
II.
21
Plaintiff states in his third motion for reconsideration that he did not appeal the relevant
22
rules violation. (Id. at 1.) He has also attached documents showing that he was assessed, among
23
other punishments, a loss of time credits for the violation. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff contends that the
24
allegations in the rules violation report were falsified.
25
Third Motion for Reconsideration
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the court to relieve a party from an order
26
for any reason that justifies relief. “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent
27
highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered
28
evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,”
2
1
Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009)
2
(internal quotations marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must
3
show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which
4
was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist.,
5
134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
6
Plaintiff’s third motion for reconsideration once again sets forth no grounds entitling him
7
to reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing this action. As Plaintiff has been previously,
8
and repeatedly, informed, his claims in this action are barred by the favorable termination rule.
9
It has long been established that state prisoners cannot challenge the fact or duration of
10
their confinement in a section 1983 action and their sole remedy lies in habeas corpus relief.
11
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78, 125 S. Ct. 1242 (2005) (action for restoration of good-
12
time credits demands immediate release or a shorter period of detention and attacks duration of
13
physical confinement). Often referred to as the favorable termination rule or the Heck bar, this
14
exception to section 1983’s otherwise broad scope applies whenever state prisoners “seek to
15
invalidate the duration of their confinement - either directly through an injunction compelling
16
speedier release or indirectly through a judicial determination that necessarily implies the
17
unlawfulness of the State’s custody.” Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81 (emphasis in original). Thus, “a
18
state prisoner’s [section] 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) - no matter the relief
19
sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct
20
leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings) - if success in that action would necessarily
21
demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Id. at 81-2.
22
The Court understands that Plaintiff argues the events for which he was issued a rules
23
violation report, and found guilty of a violation, did not occur as alleged, and he wishes to bring
24
an action against certain correctional officers and other staff involved in the incident based on his
25
version of the events. That is exactly what the favorable termination rule or the Heck bar will not
26
permit him to do in this section 1983 civil rights action. Once again, Plaintiff is informed that he
27
may not bring a section 1983 action that will by necessity invalidate a previous judicial
28
determination that affected the validity or duration of his confinement, if he cannot show that his
3
1
good time credits have been restored, or that the disciplinary conviction was overturned or
2
otherwise invalidated. He cannot use this section 1983 action as an avenue for attempting to
3
overturn or invalidate the rules violation findings.
4
Since Plaintiff’s motion and exhibits again confirm that claims in this action are barred
5
by the favorable termination rule, the Court finds no basis to grant Plaintiff relief from the
6
judgment. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81-82. The Court will not entertain another motion to
7
reconsider this judgment based on the same arguments the Defendant has now repeatedly
8
presented and the Court has rejected.
9
10
III.
Conclusion and Order
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s third motion for reconsideration, filed on December 3,
11
2015 (ECF No. 25), is DENIED.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
August 9, 2016
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?