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)

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