Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00908/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00908-11/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

FRANCIS W. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-0908-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

(Doc. 37)

Plaintiff Francis Davis (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 28, 2006, this Court

granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the action based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust available

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Judgment was entered the same day. On September 7,

2006, plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

procedure 59(e), arguing that he should not be required to exhaust administrative remedies because

his appeal was cancelled at the first level by defendant Stohl.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final

order or judgment for “any . . . reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 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. Motions to reconsider are

Case 1:05-cv-00908-AWI-DLB Document 38 Filed 10/04/06 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

committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441

(D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party

must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior

decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal.

1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 

This action was dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a),

which provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C.

§ 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional

facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” Section 1997e(a) requires

that prisoners exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey,

311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

As evidence in the attachments to plaintiff’s complaint, he refused to participate in the

interview process. Compl. at p. 12. Due to plaintiff’s “loud, argumentative and disruptive”

behavior, the interview attempt was terminated and based on his “lack of cooperation” the appeal

was canceled at the First Level of Review. Id. Plaintiff concedes that he did not pursue the appeal

beyond the first level but argues that since the appeal was cancelled at the first level, it was

exhausted. As stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Finding and Recommendation, while plaintiff may

dispute the reason for the cancellation, the fact remains that he did not pursue the appeal beyond the

first level. Plaintiff’s decision to file suit before exhausting, is fatal to the instant action. Plaintiff’s

sole remedy, if he wishes to pursue his claims, is to exhaust the administrative process and then file

a new action. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to amend or alter judgment and re-open this action, filed

September 7, 2006, is HEREBY ORDERED denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00908-AWI-DLB Document 38 Filed 10/04/06 Page 2 of 2