Jones v. Ryan et al

Filing 119

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 111 Motion for Relief From Court's June 26, 2009 Order Pursuant to FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b). Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 12/15/09. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(vet) (jrl).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I. 21 PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at California State Prison located in Corcoran,
vs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RODNEY WAYNE JONES, CDCR #D-55894, Plaintiff,
Civil No. 07-1019 BTM (JMA)

STUART J. RYAN, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM COURT'S JUNE 26, 2009 ORDER PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b) [Doc. No. 111]

22 California, and proceeding pro se, filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") pursuant to 42 23 U.S.C. § 1983 [Doc. No. 59]. Defendants Ryan, Ochoa, Jimenez, Zills, Schommer, Ortiz, 24 Rodiles, Mejia, Sandoval, Wells, Castaneda, Cosio, Flores, Ritter, Bell, Anadalon, Harmon, 25 Duarte, Stratton, Price, Martinez, Valenzuela and Rangel filed Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's 26 First Amended Complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV. P. 12(b)(6) [Doc. Nos. 63, 95]. In addition, 27 Defendant Pegues filed a Notice of Joinder and Joinder to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss 28 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 64].
-107cv1019 BTM (JMA)

1

On June 26, 2009, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motions to

2 Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. See June 26, 2009 Order at 18-19. Plaintiff has 3 now filed a "Motion for Relief from the Court's June 26, 2009 Order" in which he challenges 4 the Court's ruling as to his Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against Defendants 5 Andalon, Mejia, Sandoval, Castaneda, Cosio, Bell, Ochoa, Price and Stratton. See Pl.'s Mot. 6 at 1-9. [Doc. No. 111]. Defendants filed an Opposition on November 12, 2009. [Doc. No. 113.] 7 II. 8 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE COURT'S JUNE 26, 2009 ORDER Under Rule 60(b), a motion for "relief from judgment or order" may be filed within a

9 "reasonable time," but usually must be filed "not more than one year after the judgment, order, 10 or proceeding was entered or taken." FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b). Reconsideration under Rule 60 may 11 be granted in the case of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly 12 discovered evidence; or (3) fraud; or if (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 13 satisfied; or (6) for any other reason justifying relief. FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b). 14 Here, Plaintiff seeks to address the Court's June 26, 2009 Order dismissing his Fourteenth

15 Amendment due process claims. In Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, he alleged that his 16 Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated by the alleged false reports and 17 perjured testimony by Defendants that led to criminal charges being brought against him in 18 Imperial County. The Court found in the June 26, 2009 Order that these claims were not yet 19 cognizable pursuant to the favorable termination doctrine set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 20 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). See June 26, 2009 Order at 10. ("These Fourteenth Amendment due 21 process claims amount to an attack on the constitutional validity of his ongoing state criminal 22 proceedings, and therefore, may not be maintained pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless and 23 until he can show that conviction has already been invalidated.") Plaintiff had also claimed in 24 his First Amended Complaint that he had never been subject to a disciplinary hearing based on 25 these false reports. See FAC ¶ 100. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / /
-207cv1019 BTM (JMA)

1

In his Motion seeking relief from the Court's Order, Plaintiff claims that his Fourteenth

2 Amendment due process claims are now cognizable because all the criminal charges against him 3 have been dismissed. See Pl.'s Mot. at 5. However, Plaintiff does now claim that due to 4 Defendants' "issuance of false reports and perjured testimony" he was "subsequently unjustly 5 found guilty of battery on staff during a `wanton and prejudicial' disciplinary hearing." Id. at 6 6. As a result, Plaintiff lost good time credits and was sentenced to the "SHU"1 for nearly four 7 years. Id. 8 However, these claims are also barred by the favorable termination doctrine set forth in

9 Heck. Constitutional claims involving a prison's disciplinary decisions to revoke good-time 10 credits are subject to dismissal since habeas corpus is the exclusive federal remedy whenever 11 the claim for damages depends on a determination that a disciplinary judgment is invalid or the 12 sentence currently being served is unconstitutionally long. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 13 646 (1997); Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 (1994); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). 14 Here, Plaintiff cannot bring these Fourteenth Amendment due process claims which relate

15 to the constitutionality or duration of his continued confinement in that he now admits that he 16 lost good-time credit as the result of a disciplinary conviction. See Pl.'s Mot. at 6. Plaintiff was 17 informed in the Court's previous Orders that in order to state a claim for damages under section 18 1983 on this claim under Heck and Edwards, Plaintiff must first show that the disciplinary 19 conviction or sentence has already been "reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive 20 order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination, or called into 21 question by a writ of habeas corpus." Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. He has failed to do so, and 22 thus, there is no basis by which the Court could permit Plaintiff to proceed on these Fourteenth 23 Amendment due process claims. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28
1

"SHU" is an acronym for the segregated housing unit. -307cv1019 BTM (JMA)

1 III. 2

CONCLUSION AND ORDER Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Relief

3 from the Court's June 26, 2009 Order [Doc. No. 111] pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b) is 4 DENIED. 5 6 DATED: December 15, 2009 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-407cv1019 BTM (JMA)

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge