Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01966/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01966-13/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TODD WASKO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-1966 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Thomas John Heilman is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against sole defendant Correctional 

Officer Wasko. Plaintiff moves, for the second time, for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s 

September 13, 2013 findings and recommendations, ECF No. 32, adopted by this court by order 

filed December 18, 2013, ECF No. 36. This court denied plaintiff’s prior motion for 

reconsideration on August 25, 2014. See ECF Nos. 51, 72. Plaintiff filed the instant on May 21, 

2015. ECF No. 112. Defendant filed an opposition, ECF No. 114; plaintiff filed a reply, ECF 

No. 115. 

 Plaintiff challenges the court’s dismissal, on administrative exhaustion grounds,1 of 

 

1

 This matter was resolved prior to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 

(9th Cir. 2014), which requires that questions of administrative exhaustion now be decided 

pursuant to motions for summary judgment. Although the challenged matter was decided on a 

motion to dismiss, appropriate at that time, the parties submitted all of their respective supporting 

Case 2:12-cv-01966-JAM-AC Document 117 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 4
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

plaintiff’s retaliation claim premised on defendant’s issuance of three allegedly retaliatory 128-B 

Chronos. The court found that plaintiff had administratively exhausted only his retaliation claim 

premised on defendant’s October 28, 2011 issuance of a CDC-115 Rules Violation Report (RVR) 

against plaintiff (later reduced to an administrative RVR). 

 Rule 60, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizes a party to file a motion for relief 

from any order “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). No additional time 

constraints are imposed by the rule where, as here, plaintiff seeks relief premised not on an 

enumerated reason but on “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6); cf. id., 

60(b)(1)-(5). Nevertheless, application of Rule 60(b)(6) is subject to an “extraordinary 

circumstances” standard, so as not to permit “a second bite at the apple,” but to avoid inequitable 

results and to accomplish justice. In re Pacific Far East Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d 242, 250 (9th Cir. 

1989). 

 In addition, Local Rule 230 requires that a motion for reconsideration identify “what new 

or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown 

upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and a statement explaining 

“why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” Local Rule 

230(j)(3), (4). Derived from the “law of the case” doctrine, this rule ensures that legal decisions 

in a given case “should be followed unless there is substantially different evidence . . . , new 

controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would result in injustice.” 

Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Waggoner 

v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1064 (1986). “A motion for 

reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district 

court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 

intervening change in the controlling law.” Marilyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH 

& Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). 

 

evidence, which was carefully considered by the court. Plaintiff does not contend that the court 

lacked relevant evidence in making its determination, only that the court reached the wrong 

conclusion. 

Case 2:12-cv-01966-JAM-AC Document 117 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 4
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

 Pursuant to the present motion, plaintiff asks the court to review the evidence underlying 

the Magistrate Judge’s September 13, 2013 findings and recommendations, adopted by the 

undersigned by order filed December 18, 2013. Plaintiff contends that his relevant administrative 

appeal, Log No. CMF-12-M-0106, was erroneously cancelled as untimely, and that 

this court should therefore find that plaintiff was prevented from exhausting his administrative 

remedies as to the three retaliatory 128-B Chronos challenged therein. See ECF No. 112 at 45; 

see generally ECF No. 112 and attached exhibits. 

 The court previously carefully considered these matters. See Findings and 

Recommendations, ECF No. 32 at 7-10; and Order, ECF No. 36. The same argument was 

presented in plaintiff’s original opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 24, and in 

plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, ECF No. 35. 

Plaintiff again pursued this argument in his first motion for reconsideration. See ECF No. 52. 

As the court found in denying that motion, plaintiff presented no new evidence, or asserted any 

new or different facts or circumstances, and his arguments were repetitive of those arguments 

made in his previous filings. See Local Rule 230(j)(3), (4); see also ECF No. 72 (Order docketed 

August 25, 2014). Plaintiff again pursued this matter before the Magistrate Judge, requesting “en 

banc” review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, ECF No. 92, which the 

Magistrate Judge denied because plaintiff’s claims were fully addressed in the findings and 

recommendations, ECF No. 102 at 25-6. In his present motion, plaintiff again fails to present any 

new evidence or assert any new facts or circumstances warranting further review of this matter. 

Nor has plaintiff demonstrated that the court’s prior decision was clearly erroneous and/or 

resulted in a miscarriage of injustice. Cf. Handi Investment, 653 F.2d at 392. In short, plaintiff 

presents no grounds for reconsideration of a decision reached by the undersigned more than 

eighteen months ago. 

 In addition, the court denies plaintiff’s related request to authorize at trial the admission of 

the three subject allegedly retaliatory 128-B Chronos. The request is premature as it is not yet 

clear that this action will proceed to trial. The parties’ respective motions for summary judgment 

on the merits of this action are currently pending before the Magistrate Judge. 

Case 2:12-cv-01966-JAM-AC Document 117 Filed 07/09/15 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

 Finally, the court notes plaintiff’s “objections for the record.” See ECF No. 116. 

Nevertheless, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s assessment and resolution of 

the parties’ discovery disputes as set forth in her order filed March 31, 2015. See ECF No. 102. 

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time within which to file his objections, ECF No. 110, is 

denied as moot. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration filed May 21, 2015, ECF No. 112, is denied; and 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 110, is denied as moot. 

DATED: July 9, 2015 

 /s/ John A. Mendez__________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 2:12-cv-01966-JAM-AC Document 117 Filed 07/09/15 Page 4 of 4