Zarate v. Horel et al

Filing 17

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING PETITIONERS 16 MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 MANUEL ZARATE, 5 6 7 8 9 Petitioner, v. No. C 10-4727 CW (PR) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT GREG LEWIS, Acting Warden, (Docket no. 16) Respondent. ________________________________/ United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at 12 Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP), filed this pro se habeas corpus 13 petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 14 petition as raising the following claims: (1) Petitioner’s First 15 Amendment rights were violated when prison officials confiscated 16 his mail on the false ground that it was gang-related, (2) his 17 Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated when prison 18 officials, in response to his inmate appeal challenging the taking 19 of his mail, falsely referred to him as an active gang member, and 20 (3) his rights under the California Informational Practices Act 21 (IPA) were violated by the creation and placement of false 22 information in his prison file. 23 The Court construed the After full briefing by the parties, the Court, by Order dated 24 March 20, 2012, granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss the 25 petition and found Petitioner’s claims not cognizable because 26 (1) he had failed to show how the confiscation of his mail affects 27 the fact or duration of his custody and, therefore, such claim 28 must be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and not in a habeas 1 petition, (2) his allegations that the documents referring to his 2 gang membership may result in a delay or denial of parole involve 3 discretionary decisions too speculative to state a claim for 4 habeas corpus relief and he has no liberty interest in the precise 5 accuracy of his prison files under § 1983, and (3) his allegations 6 of violations of the IPA concern matters of state law that do not 7 present constitutional claims for habeas corpus relief or under 8 § 1983. 9 in favor of Respondent. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Docket no. 13. Consequently, the Court entered judgment Now pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to alter 11 or amend the judgment of dismissal. 12 Court’s final judgment may be brought under either Rule 59(e) or 13 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 14 M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1441-42 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 motion, which was filed within ten days of entry of judgment, will 16 be treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 17 59(e). 18 396-97 (9th Cir. 1992).1 19 59(e) should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 20 unless the district court is presented with newly discovered 21 evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening 22 change in the controlling law.” 23 1253, 1254 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation and citation 24 omitted). A motion which challenges the See Fuller v. The present See United States v. Nutri-Cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, “A motion for reconsideration under Rule McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 25 26 27 28 1 Petitioner’s motion is deemed filed on March 29, 2012, the date on which he signed the Proof of Service and delivered the motion to prison authorities for mailing. See Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir. 1995) 2 1 In support of his motion, Petitioner argues that the Court 2 misconstrued the nature of his claims. 3 that his intent was to challenge his validation as a gang member 4 and indeterminate sentence in the Secured Housing Unit (SHU) based 5 on the contents of the confiscated mail and the placement of false 6 information in his prison file. 7 brought in a habeas corpus action because his indeterminate 8 retention in the SHU affects his ability to become eligible for 9 parole. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Specifically, he claims He maintains such claim can be As explained to Petitioner previously, the Ninth Circuit has 11 held that “habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action 12 proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will 13 not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.” 14 Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). 15 as here, a prisoner’s successful challenge to his administrative 16 segregation will not necessarily shorten his sentence, habeas 17 jurisdiction does not lie. 18 Petitioner is successful in attacking his gang validation, 19 expunging the records from his prison file and terminating his 20 confinement in the SHU, “[t]he parole board will still have the 21 authority to deny [his] request[ ] for parole on the basis of any 22 of the grounds presently available to it in evaluating such a 23 request.” 24 a successful claim would not necessarily result in Petitioner’s 25 release on parole, he may not proceed with his claim by way of 26 federal habeas corpus. 27 28 See id. Ramirez v. In particular, where, In this case, even if Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). Because Petitioner has not presented the Court with newly discovered evidence, shown that the Court committed clear error, or shown 3 1 that there has been an intervening change in the controlling law 2 that would change the Court’s ruling. 3 alter or amend the judgment of dismissal is DENIED. Accordingly, his motion to 4 This Order terminates Docket no. 16. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: 12/27/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 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?