Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01606/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01606-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

MAURICE MILES, SR.,

 Petitioner,

v.

M.D. BITER, Warden,

 Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01606-SKO HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 12)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se whose petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was dismissed on December 10, 2014.

1

 After screening the petition 

as required by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Court, the 

Court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the habeas petition, which alleged claims concerning 

conditions of confinement not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding. Petitioner took no action 

until April 25, 2016, when he moved for reconsideration, arguing that the Court had jurisdiction 

over the petition pursuant to United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs (383 U.S. 715, 717 n. 1 

(1966)). 

Petitioner acknowledges that jurisdiction in Gibbs was premised on Section 303 of the 

Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, but argues that Gibbs nonetheless provides this Court 

with jurisdiction to address his petition. That is incorrect. The petition asserted civil rights claims 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and did not include any claims that related in any way to labor-

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge to conduct all proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:14-cv-01606-SKO Document 13 Filed 04/28/16 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

management relations. The existence of jurisdiction in Gibbs does not permit the Court to exercise 

subject matter jurisdiction over a habeas petition alleging claims that are not cognizable in a habeas 

corpus proceeding.

As set forth in the order dismissing the petition, civil rights claims alleging constitutional 

violations arising from conditions of confinement must be brought in a § 1983 civil suit, not as a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. In declining to convert the habeas petition to a civil rights 

action, the Court explained in detail the procedural differences between civil rights actions and 

petitions for writ of habeas that resulted in its decision to dismiss the petition rather than to convert 

it to a civil rights action. Petitioner did not refile the claims in a civil rights action.

Even if the footnote in Gibbs could confer habeas jurisdiction on Petitioner’s civil rights 

claims, the motion for reconsideration is untimely. A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be 

made within 28 days after entry of the judgment. F.R.Civ.P 59(e). A motion for relief from a

judgment must be made within a reasonable time -- in most cases not more than a year after the 

entry of judgment. F.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1). Based on a fifty-year-old case, a reconsideration motion 

filed over 16 months after the judgment has been unreasonably delayed.

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of his petition for writ of 

habeas corpus is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01606-SKO Document 13 Filed 04/28/16 Page 2 of 2