Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02686/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02686-8/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 

QUINTON JOEY WATTS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LYDIA ROMERO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2686 KJM CKD 

ORDER 

 On June 30, 2015, this court adopted the assigned magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations in full, dismissing this prisoner civil rights action without prejudice. ECF No. 

20. On July 27, 2015, plaintiff Quinton Joey Watts, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 

“Rule 60 motion.” ECF No. 22. For the following reasons, the motion is denied. 

 Plaintiff filed an action claiming violations of his federal constitutional rights to 

equal protection and due process related to his 2014 disciplinary conviction for Introduction of a 

Controlled Substance for Purpose of Distribution, for which he received 180 days of credit 

forfeiture. ECF No. 1 at 4, 28. The magistrate judge found plaintiff’s request for relief barred by 

Heck v. Humphrey, which held that federal challenges asserting invalidity of incarceration or its 

duration must be brought by way of petition for writ of habeas corpus after exhausting 

appropriate avenues for relief. 512 U.S. 477 (1994); see also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 

81–82 (2005) (“a state prisoner’s [section] 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)—no 

Case 2:14-cv-02686-KJM-CKD Document 23 Filed 08/05/15 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

matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit 

(state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)—if success in that action 

would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.”). Plaintiff was 

given leave to amend his complaint to show why Heck did not bar it, or how “the conditions 

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights,” and to establish a 

causal link between each of the four named defendants’ actions and the claimed violations. ECF 

No. 14 at 3. 

On May 18, 2015, plaintiff filed a letter with the court. He asserted that his 

complaint had nothing to do with Heck, but rather “the violation of my constitutional rights when 

they took my visits to see my kids and family,” violations of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition 

of cruel and unusual punishment, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. 

ECF No. 17 at 1. He also appears to challenge the evidence underlying his disciplinary action for 

possession of morphine, which he says lacked the required “facts along with hard evidence.” Id. 

The magistrate judge construed this letter as an objection to the dismissal of his 

original complaint. ECF No. 18 at 1. Because plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, she 

recommended the action be dismissed without prejudice, and allowed fourteen days for plaintiff 

to object. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff objected on June 15, 2015, protesting his underlying conviction of 

possession and the punishment given, which prohibited him from seeing his children while 

incarcerated. ECF No. 19. This court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations in full on June 30, 2015, and dismissed the action without prejudice. ECF No. 

20. Plaintiff filed the instant Rule 60 motion on July 27, 2015, seeking relief from the judgment. 

ECF No. 21. 

 Plaintiff specifies Rule 60(b)(6) as the basis of his motion. Rule 60(b)(6) has been 

used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice. United States v. Alpine Land 

& Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion for relief from judgment for 

“any other reason that justifies relief” should not be granted absent “extraordinary circumstances” 

and should not be a vehicle for repackaging arguments already presented. Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 

F.3d 252, 254–55 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Case 2:14-cv-02686-KJM-CKD Document 23 Filed 08/05/15 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 

3

 Plaintiff has not cleared the high hurdle set by Rule 60(b)(6), as he has not 

identified any new facts or circumstances that he was unable to present in connection with his 

original complaint or objections. Plaintiff has not identified any extraordinary circumstances 

justifying relief from judgment. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 22, is denied. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 4, 2015. 

 

 

 

Case 2:14-cv-02686-KJM-CKD Document 23 Filed 08/05/15 Page 3 of 3