Arellano v. Blahnik

Filing 115

ORDER Denying Motion "To Know if Permitted to Include as Relief Freedom from Incarceration" [Doc. No. 114 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 8/5/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAUL ARRELLANO,

Case No.: 16cv2412-CAB-DHB
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING MOTION “TO
KNOW IF PERMITTED TO
INCLUDE AS RELIEF FREEDOM
FROM INCARCERATION” [Doc. No.
114]

BLAHNIK,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

On August 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion “to know if I can be permitted to
include as relief freedom from incarceration and to be allowed to allege compensating
money damages for wrongful incarceration” (“motion to know”). [Doc. No. 114.] The
motion to know appears to be yet another motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order
of August 17, 2017 (the “August 17 Order”) [Doc. No. 16.] For the reasons stated in the
August 17 Order, as well as this Court’s order of September 8, 2017 [Doc. No. 21]
denying Plaintiff’s first motion for reconsideration, the motion to know is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly authorize a motion
for reconsideration, “(a) district court has the inherent power to reconsider and modify its
interlocutory orders prior to the entry of judgment …” Posthearing Procedures, Cal.

28
1
16cv2412-CAB-DHB

1

Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial, Ch. 12-E, §12:158, quoting Smith v.

2

Massachusetts, 543 US 462, 475 (2005). However, reconsideration is an “extraordinary

3

remedy, to be used sparingly.” Absent highly unusual circumstances, a motion for

4

reconsideration will not be granted “unless the district court is presented with newly

5

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the

6

controlling law.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.

7

2000)(internal quotes omitted).

8

First, Plaintiff’s motion to know is untimely. Civil Local Rule 7.1.i.2. Second,

9

Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered evidence, nor has he shown clear error

10

or an intervening change in the controlling law. Kona Enterprises, Inc., 229 F3d at 890.

11

Plaintiff continues to argue, as he did in the underlying motion to dismiss and in the first

12

motion for reconsideration, that he was prohibited from filing a habeas petition because

13

defendants allegedly stole his documents and, therefore, he should be allowed to seek

14

monetary damages for wrongful incarceration. [Doc. No. 114 at 2.] Again, as clearly set

15

forth in the August 17 Order, this Court has ruled that Plaintiff’s access-to-court claim is

16

barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), to the extent that it seeks damages for

17

wrongful incarceration. [Doc. No. 16 at 8.] If Plaintiff disagrees with this Court’s ruling

18

then, after a final judgment in this case, Plaintiff is free to appeal the ruling on that issue.

19

In the meantime, this case will proceed pursuant to the August 17 Order.

20
21
22

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the motion to know is DENIED.
Dated: August 5, 2019

23
24
25
26
27
28
2
16cv2412-CAB-DHB