United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 25)
LAWRENCE J. O’NEILL, UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
I.
Procedural Background
Plaintiff
Richard Jackson (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner,
proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On June 4, 2014, the Magistrate Judge dismissed
Plaintiff’s original complaint, filed on June 27, 2013,
with leave to amend. In order to determine whether or not the
action was barred by the favorable termination rule,
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78, 125 S.Ct. 1242
(2005), the Magistrate Judge expressly directed Plaintiff to
address, if he could do so in good faith, his failure to
allege that his time credits had been restored or that his
disciplinary conviction had been overturned or otherwise
invalidated. (ECF No. 13, p. 4.)
On June
16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On June
19, 2014, the Magistrate Judge screened the complaint and
issued Findings and Recommendations that this action be
dismissed, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s
failure to comply with the Court’s screening order. In
particular, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff had
failed to comply with the direction to allege whether or not
his time credits had been restored or that his disciplinary
conviction was overturned or otherwise invalidated. (ECF No.
17.) Plaintiff objected to the Magistrate Judge’s
Findings and Recommendations on July 3, 2014.
On July
15, 2014, following consideration of Plaintiff’s
objections, the undersigned adopted the Findings and
Recommendations in full and dismissed this action without
prejudice. (ECF No. 19.) On the same date, the Clerk of the
Court entered judgment. (ECF No. 20.)
On July
28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF
No. 21.) On July 31, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e), finding that Plaintiff had not provided the
Court with a valid ground to alter or amend the judgment,
such as newly discovered evidence, clear error or a change in
the controlling law. Further, the Court found that Plaintiff
essentially confirmed he could not allege, in good faith,
that his good time credits were restored or that his prison
disciplinary conviction was overturned or otherwise
invalidated. (ECF No. 22.)
On May
21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second motion for
reconsideration. (ECF No. 23.) On May 27, 2015, the Court
denied that motion, finding that it set forth no grounds
entitling Plaintiff to reconsideration of the Court’s
order dismissing this action. Specifically, that motion
included exhibits demonstrating that Plaintiff had been
denied restoration of his time credits, and thus Plaintiff
again confirmed that he cannot allege, in good faith, that
his time credits were restored.
Currently
before the Court is Plaintiff’s third motion for
reconsideration. (ECF No. 25.)
II.
Third Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiff
states in his third motion for reconsideration that he did
not appeal the relevant rules violation. (Id. at 1.)
He has also attached documents showing that he was assessed,
among other punishments, a loss of time credits for the
violation. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff contends that the
allegations in the rules violation report were falsified.
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the court to relieve
a party from an order for any reason that justifies relief.
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted,
absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district
court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed
clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the
controlling law, ” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v.
Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.
2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted, and
“[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than
a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and
recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already
considered by the Court in rendering its decision, ”
U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111,
1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Plaintiff’s
third motion for reconsideration once again sets forth no
grounds entitling him to reconsideration of the Court’s
order dismissing this action. As Plaintiff has been
previously, and repeatedly, informed, his claims in this
action are barred by the favorable termination rule.
It has
long been established that state prisoners cannot challenge
the fact or duration of their confinement in a section 1983
action and their sole remedy lies in habeas corpus relief.
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78, 125 S.Ct. 1242
(2005) (action for restoration of good-time credits demands
immediate release or a shorter period of detention and
attacks duration of physical confinement). Often referred to
as the favorable termination rule or the Heck bar,
this exception to section 1983’s otherwise broad scope
applies whenever state prisoners “seek to invalidate
the duration of their confinement - either directly
through an injunction compelling speedier release or
indirectly through a judicial determination that
necessarily implies the unlawfulness of the State’s
custody.” Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81 (emphasis
in original). Thus, “a state prisoner’s [section]
1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) - no matter
the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter
the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct
leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings) - if
success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the
invalidity of confinement or its duration.”
Id. at 81-2.
The
Court understands that Plaintiff argues the events for which
he was issued a rules violation report, and found guilty of a
violation, did not occur as alleged, and he wishes to bring
an action against certain correctional officers and other
staff involved in the incident based on his version of the
events. That is exactly what the favorable termination rule
or the Heck bar will not permit him to do in this
section 1983 civil rights action. Once again, Plaintiff is
informed that he may not bring a section 1983 action that
will by necessity invalidate a previous judicial
determination that affected the validity or duration of his
confinement, if he cannot show that his good time credits
have been restored, or ...