Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00656/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00656-3/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 Motion for Reconsideration

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.09\Shove656rec2.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THEODORE SHOVE,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

GOVERNOR A. SCHWARZENEGGER, et

al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-0656 RMW (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 alleging, inter alia, that he is being illegally imprisoned and his criminal

convictions are void. On June 3, 2009, the court dismissed the complaint concluding that

plaintiff’s claims were barred under both Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) and Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). On June 19, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. 

On December 8, 2009, the court denied his motion. On December 28, 2009, plaintiff filed a

notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. On January 21, 2010, the Ninth Circuit

concluded, “Because the appeal is so insubstantial as to not warrant further review, it shall not be

permitted to proceed.” In re Theodore Shove, No. 96-80069 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2010) (order). 

On June 28, 2010, plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration. In the motion,

plaintiff appears to be challenging his underlying conviction and sentence. Again, plaintiff’s

*E-FILED - 8/17/10*

Case 5:09-cv-00656-RMW Document 30 Filed 08/17/10 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

Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.09\Shove656rec2.wpd 2

allegations provide no valid grounds for reconsideration of the court’s conclusion that plaintiff’s

underlying claims challenging his conviction are barred by both Younger and Heck. 

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. No further filings will be accepted in

this closed case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _________________ RONALD M. WHYTE

 United States District Judge

8/17/10

Case 5:09-cv-00656-RMW Document 30 Filed 08/17/10 Page 2 of 2