Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01115/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01115-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT ALAN HECKER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1115 LKK DAD P

vs.

K. MYLES, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Judgment was entered in this case on July 6, 2007 after the court determined that

plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim. On July 18, 2007, plaintiff filed a document

entitled, “Motion To Amend Findings and 7/6/07 Judgment.” Therein, plaintiff argues that

pursuant to Rules 52(b) and 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the judgment should be

vacated. On August 8, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion entitled, “Motion For Relief From Mistaken

Findings and 7/6/07 Judgment.” In that motion plaintiff advanced similar arguments but sought

relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

In his complaint plaintiff alleged that defendant Pacheco, a psychologist at

Folsom State Prison, was aware that plaintiff’s suffered from a psychiatric condition and should

have acted to prevent plaintiff from being placed in administrative segregation. The

classification committee report, attached to plaintiff’s complaint, indicated that plaintiff was

Case 2:06-cv-01115-LKK -DAD Document 30 Filed 10/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

placed in administrative segregation to protect him from assault by inmates who had previously

assaulted him. The report indicated that plaintiff had called those inmates, “skinhead,” thereby

jeopardizing his own safety and the security of the institution. 

The court concluded that plaintiff had failed to state cognizable claims

challenging his placement in administrative segregation, his classification change or the

procedural due process accorded him. In his pending motions, plaintiff again contends that he

was experiencing a psychological crisis at the time and that defendant Pacheco should have

initiated crisis intervention rather than allowing plaintiff to be placed in administrative

segregation. These allegations were previously considered by the court. 

Rules 52 and 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern motions for new

trial and to alter or amend judgments. Of more relevance to plaintiff’s pending motions, Rule

60(b) provides: 

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a

party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due

diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a

new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore

denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (the

judgment has been satisfied . . .; or (6) any other reason justifying

relief from the operation of the judgment. 

Rule 60(b) motions are addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. See

Yusov v. Yusuf, 892 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1989); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles,

782 F.2d 829, 832 (9th Cir. 1986); Savarese v. Edrick Transfer & Storage, 513 F.2d 140, 146

(9th Cir. 1975); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 678 F. Supp. 1456, 1457 (E.D. Cal. 1988). Here, plaintiff

has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief from the judgment previously entered by the

court . 

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01115-LKK -DAD Document 30 Filed 10/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, plaintiff’s July 18, 2007 and

August 8, 2007 motions to vacate the judgment and to amend the court’s findings and

conclusions, are denied. 

DATED: October 18, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01115-LKK -DAD Document 30 Filed 10/19/07 Page 3 of 3