Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02464/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02464-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HEIZELMAN,

BOP #20068-298,

Civil No. 12cv2464 AJB (DHB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO DISPUTE DISMISSAL

AND FOR RECONSIDERATION

[ECF No. 5]

vs.

JOHN DOE C/Os; 

CARLOS HERNANDEZ,

Defendants.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I.

On October 10, 2012, Plaintiff, Robert Heizelman, a federal prisoner incarcerated at the

Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, filed

a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff did not prepay the $350 filing fee required to commence a civil action; therefore,

on October 16, 2012, the Court dismissed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), noting that

while it “would ordinarily grant [Plaintiff] leave to file a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a),” he is “no longer entitled to that privilege” because he

has filed, while incarcerated, three prior civil actions which were dismissed as frivolous,

malicious, or for failing to state a claim. See Oct. 16, 2012 Order [ECF No. 2] at 2, 4-5 (citing

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).

I:\Chambers Battaglia\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\12cv2464-reconsider-1915(g).wpd -1- 12cv2464 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-02464-AJB-DHB Document 6 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In response, on October 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion to Dispute

Dismissal of 1983” which the Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration of its October16,

2012 Order [ECF No. 5]. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir.

2003) (“Courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally, including pro se motions as

well as complaints.”); Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.

1988) (court must construe civil rights cases filed in pro se liberally “and must afford plaintiff

the benefit of any doubt; Christensen v. CIR, 786 F.2d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1986) (liberally

construing pro se taxpayer’s motion to “place statements in the record” as a motion for leave to

amend).

As the Court noted in its October 16, 2012 Order, the Prison Litigation Reform Act

precludes a prisoner from proceeding IFP if:

. . . the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while

incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal

in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds

that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger

of serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “This subdivision is commonly known as the ‘three strikes’ provision.” 

Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005). “Pursuant to § 1915(g), a prisoner

with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFP.” Id. 

After reviewing Plaintiff’s litigation history, this Court took judicial notice of three

“strikes” Plaintiff accumulated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prior to the filing of this action. 

See Oct. 16, 2012 Order (ECF No. 2) at 4. Moreover, the Court noted Plaintiff’s pleading 1

contained no “plausible allegation” to suggest he “faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical

Plaintiff’s three prior “strikes” are: 1) Heizelman v. Martin, et al., Civil Case No. 1:07-cv- 1

00288-EJL (D. Idaho Dec. 11, 2007 Initial Review Order dismissing complaint for failing to state

cognizable constitutional claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) [ECF No. 5]); (March 19, 2009

Order granting Motion to amend and dismissing amended complaint) [ECF No. 7]) (strike one); 2)

Heizelman v. Richardson, et al., Civil Case No. 1:09-cv-00182-BLW (D. Idaho Oct. 16, 2009 Initial

Review Order dismissing complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

[ECF No. 10]; (May 24, 2010 Order dismissing case [ECF No. 14]) (strike two); and 3) Heizelman, et

al., v. Durham, et al., Civil Case No. 3:10-cv-01560-BTM (WMc) (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2010 Order sua

sponte dismissing Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) [Doc. No.

14]) (strike three).

I:\Chambers Battaglia\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\12cv2464-reconsider-1915(g).wpd -2- 12cv2464 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-02464-AJB-DHB Document 6 Filed 11/05/12 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

injury’ at the time of filing.” Id. (citing Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir.

2007) (hereafter “Cervantes”). Therefore, the Court found Plaintiff ineligible to proceed IFP

pursuant to U.S.C. § 1915(g), and notified him that if he wished to pursue his claims, “he must

commence a new and separate civil action ... accompanied by the $350 filing fee required by 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a).” Id. at 4-5 n.2.

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for

reconsideration. However, the Court may reconsider matters previously decided under Rule

59(e) or Rule 60(b). See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re

Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994). In Osterneck, the

Supreme Court stated that a ruling may be re-considered under Rule 59(e) motion where it

involves “‘matters properly encompassed in a [previous] decision on the merits.’” 489 U.S. at

174 (quoting White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Employ’t Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 451 (1982)). 

Under Rule 59(e), however, reconsideration is appropriate only if the district court “(1) is

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist.

No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).

In his Motion, Plaintiff claims “none of [his] prior cases has ever been dismissed for [the]

reasons ... state[d].” (Pl.’s Mot. [ECF No. 5] at 1.) Plaintiff provides no proof and alleges no

further facts, however, which might suggest the judicial record of his federal filing history is in

anyway flawed or unreliable. See Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746

(9th Cir. 2005) (court “may take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public

record.”). Plaintiff then repeats the same allegations made in his Complaint: that this Court and

other federal judges have entered into a vast conspiracy to “conceal the truth” about felonies and

murders in Idaho, as well as “insurance fraud by crooked cops and D.A.s” which have been

going on for “13 long years.” (Id. at 2-4.) 

However, Plaintiff also refers to “violence [which] was done to [him],” and pictures of

injuries he sustained “because of Marshals” which were “in front of Judge Huff at a hearing.” 

I:\Chambers Battaglia\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\12cv2464-reconsider-1915(g).wpd -3- 12cv2464 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-02464-AJB-DHB Document 6 Filed 11/05/12 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(Id. at 4.) No such allegations of violence by any person named as a Defendant in this action, 2

however, were decipherable in Plaintiff’s Complaint–and nothing in either his Complaint or his

current Motion reveal any plausible allegations of serious physical injury at the time his

Complaint was filed. See School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263; cf. Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055

(exception to § 1915(g) satisfied by claim that defendants’ failure to screen and segregate

inmates with HIV and hepatitis C “put [plaintiff] at risk of contracting” those diseases, which

“raise[d] the specter ofserious physical injury...[because] [t]hese diseases quite obviouslycause

serious health problems, and [could] result in death.”); see also Sierra v. Woodford, 2010 WL

1657493 at *3 (E.D. Cal. April 23, 2010) (unpub.) (finding “long, narrative, rambling statements

regarding a cycle of violence, and vague references to motives to harm” failed to “articulate

specific facts indicating that anyofthe named defendants [were] subjecting plaintiffto imminent

danger from a particular harm”); Marshall v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, 2009 WL 1873745

at *1 (N.D. Fla. June 27, 2009) (unpub.) (finding “vague and non-specific threats and ‘danger’

at the hands of correctional officers” insufficient to meet § 1915(g)’s “imminent danger of

serious physical injury” exception). 

Therefore, nothing in Plaintiff’s Motion indicates that if he were to seek in forma

pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), that he would be entitled to that privilege

because he is exempted by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)’s “imminent danger” exception. See Cervantes,

493 F.3d at 1053 (“[T]he availability of the exception turns on the conditions a prisoner faced

at the time the complaint was filed, not at some earlier or later time.”).

In sum, this Court finds that because Plaintiff’s Motion points to no newly discovered

evidence, fails to show clear error or a manifestly unjust decision, and does not identify any

intervening changes in controlling law demanding a different result, reconsideration is not

warranted. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th

Cir. 2009) (“[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

The Court took judicial notice of Plaintiff’s ongoing criminal proceedings before Judge Huff 2

in United States v. Heizelman, S.D. Cal. Criminal Case No. 3:10-cr-02417-H-1 in its October 16, 2012

Order (ECF No. 2 at 1 n.1), but it was, and remains, unclear whether or to what extent this civil action

is related to his criminal case.

I:\Chambers Battaglia\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\12cv2464-reconsider-1915(g).wpd -4- 12cv2464 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-02464-AJB-DHB Document 6 Filed 11/05/12 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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.”). 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration,

captioned as a Motion to Dispute Dismissal of 1983 [ECF No. 5], and re-affirms its dismissal

of this civil action without prejudice for failure to pay the $350 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1914(a).

Moreover, the Court again CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would be

frivolous and therefore, would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 

(9th Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would

not be frivolous). 

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 5, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

I:\Chambers Battaglia\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\12cv2464-reconsider-1915(g).wpd -5- 12cv2464 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-02464-AJB-DHB Document 6 Filed 11/05/12 Page 5 of 5