Negrete v. Ducart

Filing 10

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 9 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SALVADOR NICOLA NEGRETE, Petitioner, 8 C.E. DUCART, Docket No. 9 Respondent. 11 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. 9 10 Case No. 16-cv-06853-EMC 13 Salvador Nicola Negrete filed this pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 14 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that his right to due process was violated in a prison disciplinary decision 15 that resulted in a loss of time credits. On March 10, 2017, the Court dismissed the action because 16 “federal habeas relief is not available for a life prisoner challenging a prison disciplinary decision 17 that has resulted in the loss of time credits.” Docket No. 7 at 2 (citing Nettles v. Grounds, 830 18 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied 2017 WL 69407 (Jan. 9, 2017)). As a prisoner 19 serving an indeterminate life term, Mr. Negrete would not necessarily be entitled to immediate or 20 speedier release from custody if he prevailed in this action and had his time credits restored. Id. 21 The Court dismissed this action without prejudice to Mr. Negrete filing a civil rights action under 22 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting his due process claim. Mr. Negrete has filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that Nettles does not bar his 23 24 claim because he is eligible to earn time credits while serving his indeterminate life term. Docket 25 No. 9. 26 A party may move to alter or amend a judgment in a motion filed no later than 28 days 27 after entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion for reconsideration under Federal 28 Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) “„should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 1 unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 2 there is an intervening change in the law.‟” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 3 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc). Mr. Negrete has not shown any reason to disturb the order of dismissal or judgment. Mr. 4 The Nettles rule applies not because a life prisoner is unable to earn time credits, and instead 7 applies because any restoration of time credits would not inevitably impact of the life prisoner‟s 8 release date. As the Court explained in the order of dismissal, if Mr. Negrete prevailed and the 9 forfeited time credits were restored, “it does not necessarily follow that he will be released from 10 prison on a date sooner than otherwise would occur. He must be found suitable for parole before 11 his parole date will be set, and his time credits will not be a factor in determining that date.” 12 For the Northern District of California Negrete‟s eligibility to earn time credits does not negate the applicability of the rule from Nettles. 6 United States District Court 5 Docket No. 7 at 2 (citing Nettles, 830 F.3d at 926 n.1). Mr. Negrete has not shown newly discovered evidence, clear error by the Court, or an 13 14 intervening change in the law. His motion for reconsideration therefore is DENIED. Docket No. 15 9. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 21 Dated: May 2, 2017 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?