Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01312/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01312-1/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

DAVID E. RIVERA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

MILLER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01312-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO REOPEN THE CASE

(Doc. 8)

Plaintiff, David E. Rivera, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 22, 2014. This action was screened and dismissed on 

July 17, 2015, since the only claim that Plaintiff asserted was barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 

512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (applying Heck to a 

prison disciplinary hearing where good-time credits were affected). (Doc. 6.) On October 17, 

2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen this action, asserting that he did not receive the order 

dismissing the case. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff's motion is construed as a motion for relief from 

judgment under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1

Rule 60 provides that, “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its 

legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not 

 

1

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will hereinafter be referred to as ARule *.@ 

Case 1:14-cv-01312-SKO Document 9 Filed 12/14/16 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

have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on 

an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it 

prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

“A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and 

(3) no more than a year after entry of the judgment or order . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 

Plaintiff’s motion, if reviewed for the reasons in subsections (1), (2), or (3), must be denied since 

it is untimely. Plaintiff asserts no basis to review the motion under subsections (4) or (5) and the 

Court finds none. 

Plaintiff’s motion fares no better under subsection (6). Plaintiff asserts he has been 

housed at Avenal State Prison since the pertinent events occurred, and that he never received the 

order dismissing this action, closing the case, and causing judgment to be entered because prison 

personnel incorrectly returned it to the Court. However, even if Plaintiff had received that order 

and timely sought relief, he fails to provide any basis upon which to find that this action is not 

barred by Heck and Edwards. (See Doc. 8.)

As noted in the order dismissing the Complaint, since Plaintiff complains of a guilty 

finding under a Rules Violation Report and seeks restoration of a 90 day credit loss, a finding in 

his favor would affect the duration of his sentence. Plaintiff’s due process claim is, therefore, 

barred by Heck and Edwards unless and until Plaintiff invalidates the result of the disciplinary 

hearing. (Doc. 6, p. 3.) Plaintiff neither contends, nor can it be implied, that the guilty verdict on 

the Rules Violation Report has been invalidated, expunged, or called into question. Thus, 

Plaintiff fails to show that relieving him from the dismissal order would be justified under 

subsection (b)(6) of Rule 60.

2

 It appears that any such action would amount to nothing more than 

a waste of sparse judicial resources. 

 

2

If the underlying guilty finding was invalidated or expunged before Plaintiff initiated this action, he may 

submit a new motion under Rule 60 accompanied by supporting documentation. Any such motion that 

does not contain documentation that the guilty finding has been overturned will be summarily denied. 

Case 1:14-cv-01312-SKO Document 9 Filed 12/14/16 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case, filed on 

October 17, 2016, (Doc. 8), is DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01312-SKO Document 9 Filed 12/14/16 Page 3 of 3