Jones v. Kimmel

Filing 20

OPINION AND ORDER granting 18 MOTION for Reconsideration re 16 Order Dismissing Case filed by Ronald Jones; VACATING the judgment 17 and the order of dismissal 16 ; granting motion to amend 13 ; directs clerk to file the second amended complaint; dismissing case pursuant to 28:1915A. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 3/25/09. (smp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION RONALD JONES, Plaintiff, vs. JAMES KIMMEL, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CAUSE NO. 3:08-CV-161

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Motion to Reconsider, filed by Plaintiff, Ronald Jones, on March 17, 2009, which the Court construes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). For the reasons set forth below, the Court: (1) GRANTS the Motion to Reconsider (DE #18); (2) VACATES the judgment dated March 5, 2009 (DE #17) and the order of dismissal (DE #16); (3) GRANTS the

motion to amend the amended complaint (DE #13); (4) DIRECTS the Clerk to file the Second Amended Complaint (DE #13-2); and (5) DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915A.

BACKGROUND Ronald Jones, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint (DE #1) which he subsequently amended (DE #8) as a matter of course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A). Thereafter he filed a motion (DE #13) seeking to file a second amended

complaint.

That motion was denied in the same order (DE #16) that

screened the amended complaint and dismissed this case. Jones now moves to reconsider the order of dismissal (DE #16) and argues that the Court erred in denying him leave to file the second amended complaint (DE #13-2). He is correct. Therefore, the Court will

vacate the order of dismissal (DE #16), grant Jones leave to file the second amended complaint (DE #13-2), and screen the second amended complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. section 1915A.

DISCUSSION "Leave requires." to amend is to be freely given when justice so

Liu v. T&H Machine, 191 F.3d 790, 794 (7th Cir. 1999) Here, justice required

(quotation marks and citation omitted).

that Jones, a pro se prisoner, be permitted to file the second amended complaint because doing so imposed no burden or prejudice on any of the Defendants (who had not yet been served) or the Court (which had not yet reviewed the amended complaint). There is no indication that the motion to amend was dilatory or made in bad faith. Therefore, the second amended complaint will be filed, then screened as required by 28 U.S.C. section 1915A. Here, Jones seeks monetary damages for Constitutional due process errors which occurred during a prison disciplinary hearing resulting in the loss of earned credit time and demotion in credit class. Jones asks this Court to find the three defendants liable 2

to him because they "knowingly and intentionally deprive[d him of] his liberty without due process of law . . .." (DE #13-2 at 8.) In Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643 (1997), the United States Supreme Court extended the principles of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), to prison disciplinary cases: In Heck, this Court held that a state prisoner's claim for damages is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, unless the prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has previously been invalidated. (Citation and quotation marks omitted.) In his Rule 59(e) motion, Jones argues that because he is only seeking money damages, judgment in this case will not imply the invalidity of his sentence. This argument was considered and

rejected by the Court in Edwards because in order to award the plaintiff money, the Court would have to find that the defendants violated his Constitutional rights by depriving him of liberty without due process of law. Edwards, 520 U.S. at 646-48. Such a

finding would inherently undermine the validity of his disciplinary hearing. Id. This is exactly what Heck and Edwards prohibit. In

this case, because Jones has not had the prison disciplinary hearing invalidated, the second amended complaint does not state a claim and must be dismissed.

CONCLUSION 3

For the reasons set forth above, the court: (1) GRANTS the Motion to Reconsider; (2) VACATES the judgment (DE #17) and the order of dismissal (DE #16); (3) GRANTS the motion to amend (DE

#13); (4) DIRECTS the clerk to file the Second Amended Complaint (DE #13-2); and (5) DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915A.

DATED: March 25, 2009

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge United States District Court

4