Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02287/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02287-0/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

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jimmy Lee Williams, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael D. Garvey, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-2287-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s June 28, 2006 Motion to Alter or Amend

Judgment (Doc. #14). The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion.

I. Background

On August 1, 2005, Plaintiff Jimmy Lee Williams, confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex-Florence, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The Court, on February 2, 2006, dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed

a First Amended Complaint on March 3, 2006 (Doc. #8), which the Court dismissed on June

16, 2006. On the same date, the Court also dismissed this action and judgment was entered.

In its June 16, 2006 Order, the Court found first that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by

the statute of limitations because Plaintiff’s claims related to a 1995 recommendation by the

Arizona Board of Executive Clemency to the Governor regarding Plaintiff’s criminal

Case 2:05-cv-02287-SMM--LOA Document 15 Filed 08/22/06 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 -

conviction. The Court found that Plaintiff’s claims accrued ten years before the filing of the

Complaint and were therefore barred by the statute of limitations.

The Court also found that even if Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of

limitations, Plaintiff’s claims were still subject to dismissal because the members of the

Arizona Board of Executive Clemency were entitled to immunity for their actions taken with

respect to prisoner’s sentence and release.

II. Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment

“A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) ‘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.’”

McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc, per curiam) (emphasis

in original) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).

In his Motion, Plaintiff argues first that his claims are not barred by the statute of

limitations and second that the Board of Executive Clemency is not immune from suit in this

case.

With respect to the statute of limitations, Plaintiff asserts that his claims accrued in

2002, that the statute of limitations was tolled while he exhausted state court remedies, and

that his August 2005 filing in this Court is therefore timely. However, Plaintiff offers no

facts in the Amended Complaint that would support the claim that his allegations accrued in

2002. Plaintiff states only that the Board made its recommendation, which Plaintiff contends

violated his due process rights, in 1995. The Court does not find that reconsideration on this

issue is appropriate.

With respect to immunity for the Board of Executive Clemency, Plaintiff argues that

“the Board members are not immune from civil suit because the Eleventh Amendment does

not forbid suing state officials in their individual capacities.” 

The source of the members of the Board of Executive Clemency’s immunity is not in

the Eleventh Amendment, which prohibits suits against the state in federal court. The

members of the Board of Executive Clemency are immune from suit because their official

Case 2:05-cv-02287-SMM--LOA Document 15 Filed 08/22/06 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 -

actions are comparable to those of judges. Judges, prosecutors and members of the Board

of Executive Clemency are immune from liability in § 1983 actions. See Ashelman v. Pope,

793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding judges and prosecutors are immune from

liability for damages under § 1983); Sellars v. Procunier, 641 F.2d 1295, 1303 (9th Cir.

1981) (concluding that members of parole board are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial

immunity for performance of their duties). Like judges, members of the Board of Clemency

are immune to suit under § 1983 because they “face the same risk of constant unfounded

suits by those disappointed by the [] board’s decisions.” Sellars, 641 F.2d at 1303.

Accordingly, the Court finds no basis for reconsideration in Plaintiff’s immunity arguments.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s June 28, 2006 Motion to Alter or

Amend Judgment (Doc. #14) is denied.

DATED this 21st day of August, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02287-SMM--LOA Document 15 Filed 08/22/06 Page 3 of 3