Hernandez v. Kernan

Filing 14

ORDER denying Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to FRCP60(b) [ECF Nos. 11 , 13 ]. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 8/12/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jrm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

STEVE GILBERT HERNANDEZ,
CDCR #G-46924,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
PURSUANT TO FRCP 60(b)

Plaintiff,

13
vs.

14
15

Case No.: 3:18-cv-00160-DMS-PCL

SCOTT KERNAN; A. SANGHA;
K. REILLY; J. LEWIS

16

[ECF Nos. 11, 13]

Defendants.

17
18
19
20

I.

Procedural History

21

On January 23, 2018, Steve Hernandez (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate currently

22

incarcerated at Correctional Training Facility located in Soledad, California, proceeding

23

pro se, filed a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In addition,

24

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.)

25

The Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP and simultaneously

26

DISMISSED his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted

27

1
3:18-cv-00160-DMS-PCL

28

1

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) & 1915A. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was given leave to

2

file an amended pleading in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified in the

3

Court’s Order. (Id.) On March 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking additional time

4

to file his amended pleading. (ECF No. 5.) However, before the Court could rule on this

5

motion, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 6.) Therefore,

6

Plaintiff’s motion seeking additional time was DENIED as moot. (ECF No. 8.) The

7

Court also found that Plaintiff’s FAC failed to state a claim and DENIED leave to amend

8

as futile. (Id.)
One year later, Plaintiff has filed a “Motion for Relief from Judgment” along with

9
10

a document entitled “In Support of Motion from Relief from Judgment (Rule 60(b)).”

11

(ECF Nos. 11, 13.)

12

II.

Plaintiff’s Motion pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)

13

A.

14

Under Rule 60, a motion for “relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding”

Standard of Review

15

may be filed within a “reasonable time,” but usually must be filed “no more than a year

16

after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” FED. R. CIV. P.

17

60(c)(1).

18

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is

19

shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered

20

evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court's

21

decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has

22

been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J

23

v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

24

“Although the application of Rule 60(b) is committed to the discretion of the

25

district courts . . ., as a general matter, Rule 60(b) is remedial in nature and must be

26

liberally applied.” TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 695-96 (9th Cir.

27

2
3:18-cv-00160-DMS-PCL

28

1

2001) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). Nevertheless, Rule 60(b) provides

2

for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a showing of “exceptional

3

circumstances.” Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994).
Plaintiff’s Motion

4

B.

5

In Plaintiff’s FAC, he alleged that he suffers from Hepatitis C. (See FAC at 7.)

6

While Plaintiff was housed at Centinela State Prison (“CEN”) in 2016, he filed an

7

administrative grievance seeking a specific form of medical treatment called “Harvoni.”

8

(Id. at 5.) Plaintiff’s request was denied by CDCR prison officials and he filed this action

9

alleging that his Eighth Amendment right had been violated by the “deliberate

10

indifference” of the named Defendants to his serious medical need. (Id. at 3.)

11

However, attached to Plaintiff’s FAC were several exhibits which demonstrated

12

that Plaintiff had brought these identical Eighth Amendment claims based on the same set

13

of facts before California State Courts. (See Apr. 17, 2018 Order at 5.) Thus, Plaintiff’s

14

action was dismissed as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, he was collaterally

15

estopped from bring his Eighth Amendment claims to this Court, and the Court founds

16

that the claims were duplicative of an action he had previously litigated. (Id. at 5-8.)

17

In the Motion currently before the Court, Plaintiff is seeking “relief from

18

judgment” due to “newly discovered evidence and changed circumstances.” (Pl.’s Mot.

19

at 1.) Plaintiff claims the “new evidence” is class action that was filed in California on

20

behalf of prisoners seeking to “receive a curative treatment for Hepatitis C.” (Id. at 2.)

21

Other additional “new evidence” includes a class action in Florida where Plaintiff alleges

22

a “federal judge [r]uled state prison officials failed to properly care for felons infected

23

with hepatitis C virus.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges his “changed circumstances” is the

24

continuing deterioration of his medical condition. (Id. at 4.)

25
26
27

However, the Court did not find that Plaintiff had not adequately alleged an Eighth
Amendment claim. Instead, it was clear from the record before the Court that Plaintiff
3
3:18-cv-00160-DMS-PCL

28

1

had actively litigated this identical Eighth Amendment claim in the California State

2

Courts and received a ruling. For all the reasons set forth in the Court’s April 17, 2018

3

Order, Plaintiff cannot re-litigate these exact same claims in this Court.

4

Plaintiff appears to attempt to avoid this problem with his pleadings by now

5

arguing that he seeks to bring these identical facts and claims under the Fourteenth

6

Amendment. (Pl.’s Suppl. Mot. at 1.) He claims that he “understands the collateral

7

estoppel and issue preclusion” but he is not “preclude[d]” from bringing a “Fourteenth

8

Amendment claim of entitlement.” (Id.)

9

However, “[i]f a constitutional claim is covered by a specific constitutional

10

provision . . . the claim must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific

11

provision, not under the rubric of substantive due process.” County of Sacramento v.

12

Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 843 (1998) (quoting United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 272 n.7

13

(1997)); accord Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 272-73 (1994) (noting that when a

14

broad “due process” violation is alleged, but a particular amendment “provides an

15

explicit textual source of constitutional protection” against a particular sort of

16

government behavior, “that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of ‘substantive

17

due process,’ must be the guide for analyzing these claims.” (quoting Graham v. Connor,

18

490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)); Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 882 (9th Cir. 2001). The

19

Eighth Amendment prohibits punishment that involves the “unnecessary and wanton

20

infliction of pain.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 103 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153,

21

173 (1976)). It is this principle that “establish[es] the government’s obligation to provide

22

medical care for those whom it is punishing by incarceration.” Id. Accordingly,

23

Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to serious medical needs are more properly analyzed

24

under Eighth, rather than the Fourteenth Amendment’s standards.

25
26
27

Because Plaintiff has already litigated his Eighth Amendment claims, he may not
try to raise the exact same claims under the Fourteenth Amendment.
4
3:18-cv-00160-DMS-PCL

28

1

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not seek reconsideration based on

2

mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect. He does not present any newly discovered

3

evidence, point to fraud, argue that the Court’s April 17, 2018 Order is void, that any

4

judgment has been satisfied, or point to any “other reason” that might justify

5

reconsideration. See FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1)-(6).

6

III.

Conclusion and Order

7

Good cause appearing, the Court:

8

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF Nos. 11, 13) and

9
10
11

DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 12, 2019

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

5
3:18-cv-00160-DMS-PCL

28