Polk v. Besenaiz et al

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/20/2014 DENYING 31 Plaintiff's motion to re-open case. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MAURICE R. POLK,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:11-cv-02842 LKK DAD P

v.

ORDER

C/O R. BESENIAZ et al.,,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to re-open this case.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY

19
20

On September 27, 2012, then-assigned U.S. Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds issued an

21

order and findings and recommendations, recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be

22

granted and this action be dismissed without prejudice based on Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477

23

(1994) and its progeny. On November 13, 2012, the court adopted those findings and

24

recommendations in full and dismissed this action without prejudice. More than a year later, on

25

February 5, 2014, plaintiff filed the pending motion to re-open this case. Defendants oppose the

26

motion.

27

/////

28

/////

1

DISCUSSION

2
3

The court construes plaintiff’s motion as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which
provides:

4

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from a
final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have
been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or other misconduct by an opposing party; (4)
the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . .; or (6)
any other reason that justifies relief.

5
6
7
8
9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

10

In his motion, plaintiff complains that prison officials are keeping him confined beyond

11

his release date. Defendants oppose the motion on the ground that the current allegations are

12

unrelated to the claims raised in this civil rights action, which were based on an allegedly invalid

13

prison disciplinary conviction. Plaintiff’s motion contains no allegations which connect his

14

present assertion that he is being held past his release date to the challenged disciplinary

15

conviction. Rule 60(b) does not authorize relief from a final judgment in order to assert new and

16

unrelated claims.

17

CONCLUSION

18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to re-open this case

19

(Doc. No. 31) is denied.1

20

DATED: June 20, 2014.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/polk2842.60b

1

Nothing in this order precludes plaintiff from filing a new action to challenge the alleged
unlawful detention.
2