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)

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