Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00789/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00789-5/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

MICHAEL A. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SULLIVAN, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 789 OWW SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

RECONSIDER ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO AMEND COMPLAINT (Doc. 24.) 

ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS

MOTION (Doc. 25.) 

 Michael A. Davis (“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 this action on May

25, 2005, in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. The case was

transferred and received in this Court on June 16, 2005. On January 11, 2006, Plaintiff filed an

Amended Complaint contending he is being unconstitutionally confined indefinitely in the

Secured Housing Unit. 

On May 18, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion titled “Motion based on opposition 602 grant .

. .” In this Motion, Plaintiff complained that he is being required to cut off his hair and thus, is

being discriminated against. The Court construed this Motion as a Motion to Amend the

Complaint to include this new claim. The Court also denied the request as it was clear from the

Motion and documents attached that Plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies with

respect to the allegations concerning his hair. 

On June 9, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to reconsider the decision denying the Motion to

Amend. Plaintiff also filed a Motion titled “Pleading Motion In Accordance to Illegal

Case 1:05-cv-00789-OWW -SMS Document 26 Filed 06/19/06 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

2

Administrative Segregation Being Held Unlawfully of Indeterminate (SHU) of False

Imprisonment and Good Time Credits In Support of Plaintiff.” (Doc. 25.) The Court will

address each Motion in turn. 

A. Motion for Reconsideration

Motions to reconsider are 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). The Local Rules provide that when filing a motion for reconsideration, a

party show that the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist

or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local

Rule 78-230(k)(3). 

In this case, Plaintiff states that the documents attached indicated that the appeal was filed

in 2005 and not 2006. Thus, Plaintiff alleges, he completed the exhaustion of administrative

remedies prior to initiating this suit. The Court has examined the documents provided by

Plaintiff again and although Plaintiff is correct, that the year indicated in the documents is 2005,

Plaintiff initiated this action on May 25, 2006, which is reflected by the Court stamp on the

Complaint submitted. (Doc. 2.) Plaintiff states in the very Motion for Reconsideration that the

grievance concerning the “hair issue” was originally filed on “May 26, 2005 . . . and not 2006.”

(Motion at 1.) Plaintiff overlooks the case law provided in the Court’s prior order which states

clearly that exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198,

1199-1201 (9th Cir.2002) (emphasis added). All the remaining appeals concerning the hair issue

were addressed after May 25, 2006, when Plaintiff initiated this action. Accordingly, his request

for reconsideration is DENIED and Plaintiff may not amend the Complaint to include a claim

that was not exhausted prior to filing this action. This holding, however, does not preclude

Plaintiff from filing an entirely separate civil rights action regarding the hair issue. 

B. MISCELLANEOUS MOTION

Also on June 9, 2006, Plaintiff filed a miscellaneous Motion concerning his detention in

administrative segregation, which he alleges is indefinite and is causing him to be confined

“beyond his release date.” Plaintiff asks that the Court restore his good time credits and order his

Case 1:05-cv-00789-OWW -SMS Document 26 Filed 06/19/06 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

1The restoration of good time credits affects the duration of Plaintiff’s confinement and thus, it is cognizable

in a habeas corpus action.

3

release from what he deems is “false imprisonment.” 

Plaintiff’s allegations are not cognizable in a civil rights action and thus, his Motion will

be denied. When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a

constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release,1 his sole federal remedy is a

writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d

874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). 

Moreover, when seeking damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment, “a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed

on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to

make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas

corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). “A claim for

damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is

not cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at 488. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a

cognizable claim for relief. The Motion is therefore, DENIED. 

C. CONCLUSION

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Denying the Motion to Amend is

DENIED; and 

2. Plaintiff’s Miscellaneous Motion seeking restoration of credits and release from

administrative segregation is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00789-OWW -SMS Document 26 Filed 06/19/06 Page 3 of 3