Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06403/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06403-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL ROMERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

D.A. YBARRA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 6403 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 14.) 

 Manuel Romero (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on

October 14, 2004, naming D.A. Ybarra, S. Aguilera-Marrero, and Tony Loftin as Defendants. 

On April 11, 2006, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the action

because it was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520

U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (applying Heck to a prison disciplinary hearing where good-time credits

were affected). The Findings and Recommendations served on Plaintiff were returned to Plaintiff

marked “undeliverable (NOT AT THIS ADDRESS).” On June 27, 2006, this Court adopted the

Findings and Recommendations and judgment was entered. 

On July 11, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dismissing the

case. Plaintiff explains that while his case was pending, he was en route from Corcoran State

Prison to Pelican Bay and was temporarily held at Tehachapi. Plaintiff states that his time at

Tehachapi was supposed to be limited to two days by turned out to be several months. Plaintiff

states he is finally at Pelican Bay State Prison and wishes to proceed with his case. 

Case 1:04-cv-06403-AWI-LJO Document 15 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment

on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an

adverse party, . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, in

any event “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” 

Id.

In this case, Plaintiff’s justification for reconsideration is insufficient to meet the

requirements of Rule 60(b). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, his case was not dismissed for his

failure to keep the Court apprised of his address, it was dismissed because it was barred by

current case law from federal review. As stated in the Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff

may not pursue a civil rights action where “success in a . . . [Section] 1983 damages action would

implicitly question the validity of conviction or duration of sentence .... the litigant must first

achieve favorable termination of his available state, or federal habeas, opportunities to challenge

the underlying conviction or sentence.” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751, 124 S.Ct.

1303, 1304 (2004) (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)); Edwards v. Balisok, 520

U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (applying Heck to a prison disciplinary hearing where good-time credits

were affected). Because the punishment imposed at the disciplinary hearing affects the duration

of Plaintiff’s sentence, Plaintiff’s claim is barred from federal review until such time as he

invalidates the result of the disciplinary hearing. Id. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06403-AWI-LJO Document 15 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 2