Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00986-6/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MIKE PALOMBO, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13-cv-00986-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 25)

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff Richard Jackson (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, proceeded pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 4, 2014, the Magistrate 

Judge dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint, filed on June 27, 2013, with leave to amend. In 

order to determine whether or not the action was barred by the favorable termination rule, 

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78, 125 S. Ct. 1242 (2005), the Magistrate Judge expressly 

directed Plaintiff to address, if he could do so in good faith, his failure to allege that his time 

credits had been restored or that his disciplinary conviction had been overturned or otherwise 

invalidated. (ECF No. 13, p. 4.) 

On June 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On June 19, 2014, the 

Magistrate Judge screened the complaint and issued Findings and Recommendations that this 

action be dismissed, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s

screening order. In particular, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff had failed to comply with 

Case 1:13-cv-00986-LJO-BAM Document 26 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 4
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

the direction to allege whether or not his time credits had been restored or that his disciplinary 

conviction was overturned or otherwise invalidated. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff objected to the 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations on July 3, 2014. 

On July 15, 2014, following consideration of Plaintiff’s objections, the undersigned 

adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full and dismissed this action without prejudice. 

(ECF No. 19.) On the same date, the Clerk of the Court entered judgment. (ECF No. 20.) 

On July 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 21.) On July 31, 

2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 59(e), finding that Plaintiff had not provided the Court with a valid ground to alter or 

amend the judgment, such as newly discovered evidence, clear error or a change in the 

controlling law. Further, the Court found that Plaintiff essentially confirmed he could not allege, 

in good faith, that his good time credits were restored or that his prison disciplinary conviction 

was overturned or otherwise invalidated. (ECF No. 22.)

On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 23.) On 

May 27, 2015, the Court denied that motion, finding that it set forth no grounds entitling Plaintiff

to reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing this action. Specifically, that motion included 

exhibits demonstrating that Plaintiff had been denied restoration of his time credits, and thus 

Plaintiff again confirmed that he cannot allege, in good faith, that his time credits were restored. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s third motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 25.) 

II. Third Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff states in his third motion for reconsideration that he did not appeal the relevant 

rules violation. (Id. at 1.) He has also attached documents showing that he was assessed, among 

other punishments, a loss of time credits for the violation. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff contends that the 

allegations in the rules violation report were falsified. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the court to relieve a party from an order 

for any reason that justifies relief. “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,” 

Case 1:13-cv-00986-LJO-BAM Document 26 Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 4
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

Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotations marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must 

show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which 

was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 

134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Plaintiff’s third motion for reconsideration once again sets forth no grounds entitling him 

to reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing this action. As Plaintiff has been previously, 

and repeatedly, informed, his claims in this action are barred by the favorable termination rule.

It has long been established that state prisoners cannot challenge the fact or duration of 

their confinement in a section 1983 action and their sole remedy lies in habeas corpus relief. 

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78, 125 S. Ct. 1242 (2005) (action for restoration of goodtime credits demands immediate release or a shorter period of detention and attacks duration of 

physical confinement). Often referred to as the favorable termination rule or the Heck bar, this 

exception to section 1983’s otherwise broad scope applies whenever state prisoners “seek to 

invalidate the duration of their confinement - either directly through an injunction compelling 

speedier release or indirectly through a judicial determination that necessarily implies the 

unlawfulness of the State’s custody.” Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81 (emphasis in original). Thus, “a 

state prisoner’s [section] 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) - no 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.” Id. at 81-2.

The Court understands that Plaintiff argues the events for which he was issued a rules 

violation report, and found guilty of a violation, did not occur as alleged, and he wishes to bring 

an action against certain correctional officers and other staff involved in the incident based on his 

version of the events. That is exactly what the favorable termination rule or the Heck bar will not 

permit him to do in this section 1983 civil rights action. Once again, Plaintiff is informed that he 

may not bring a section 1983 action that will by necessity invalidate a previous judicial 

determination that affected the validity or duration of his confinement, if he cannot show that his 

Case 1:13-cv-00986-LJO-BAM Document 26 Filed 08/10/16 Page 3 of 4
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

good time credits have been restored, or that the disciplinary conviction was overturned or 

otherwise invalidated. He cannot use this section 1983 action as an avenue for attempting to 

overturn or invalidate the rules violation findings. 

Since Plaintiff’s motion and exhibits again confirm that claims in this action are barred 

by the favorable termination rule, the Court finds no basis to grant Plaintiff relief from the 

judgment. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81-82. The Court will not entertain another motion to 

reconsider this judgment based on the same arguments the Defendant has now repeatedly 

presented and the Court has rejected.

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s third motion for reconsideration, filed on December 3, 

2015 (ECF No. 25), is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00986-LJO-BAM Document 26 Filed 08/10/16 Page 4 of 4