Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06372/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06372-2/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

Order Denying Reconsideration 

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.06\Cobb372rec.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY LYNN COBB,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-6372 RMW (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 11)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil rights complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the constitutionality of discipline he received for violating

prison rules. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice because the complaint

challenged disciplinary proceedings that resulted in loss of good time credits. Plaintiff

has filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which, for the reasons explained below, will be DENIED.

Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted; they

are not a substitute for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. 

See Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir.

1981). Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for reconsideration

where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have

*E-FILED - 8/18/08*

Case 5:06-cv-06372-RMW Document 12 Filed 08/18/08 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

27

28

Order Denying Reconsideration 

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.06\Cobb372rec.wpd

been discovered before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) voiding of

the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). 

Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary;

mere dissatisfaction with the court's order or belief that the court is wrong in its decision

are not adequate grounds for relief. See Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v.

Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Plaintiff fails to allege the provision of such rule under which reconsideration is

warranted; he alleges no new evidence that could not have been discovered with due

diligence, no mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, no fraud by the adverse

party, and no voiding of the judgment. Plaintiff does not provide any other reason

justifying relief. 

Because plaintiff challenged disciplinary findings that had resulted in the loss of

good time credits, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice to plaintiff’s

bringing his challenge in a habeas action. A claim involving the loss of good time credits

affects the duration of a prisoner's custody, a determination of which may likely result in

entitlement to an earlier release, and thus must be brought in habeas. See Butterfield v.

Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff argues that the present action should

have been allowed to continue based on plaintiff’s claim for money damages for the

alleged violation of his rights in connection with his discipline. However, until and

unless the prison disciplinary findings are expunged on appeal, vacated by a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus, or are otherwise invalidated, plaintiff may not seek money

damages for any alleged constitutional violations in connection with disciplinary

proceedings that resulted in the loss of good time credits.. See Sheldon v. Hundley, 83

F.3d 231, 233 (8th Cir. 1996) (Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994), bars a

claim for money damages based on unconstitutional deprivation of time credits because

such a claim necessarily calls into question the lawfulness of the plaintiff's continuing

confinement, i.e., it implicates the duration of the plaintiff's sentence); see also Edwards

Case 5:06-cv-06372-RMW Document 12 Filed 08/18/08 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

27

28

Order Denying Reconsideration 

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.06\Cobb372rec.wpd

v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645 (1997) (Heck also bars a claim for using the wrong Wolff

v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), procedures in a disciplinary hearing that resulted in

the deprivation of time credits if "the nature of the challenge to the procedures [is] such as

necessarily to imply the invalidity of the judgment."). Consequently, plaintiff’s damages

claims based on the alleged violation of his rights in connection with his discipline, which

resulted in the loss of good time credits, are properly dismissed without prejudice. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 11) is DENIED.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

8/15/08

Case 5:06-cv-06372-RMW Document 12 Filed 08/18/08 Page 3 of 3