Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00010/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00010-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHELDON DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J.A. ZAMORA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0010 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c). On May 4, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to amend and a third amended complaint. 

However, this civil rights action was closed on March 17, 2016. Good cause appearing, the 

undersigned construes plaintiff’s filing as a motion for relief from judgment. 

Rule 60(b) provides as follows:

Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or 

Proceeding. On 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 have been discovered in time to move for a new trial 

under Rule 59(b); 

////

Case 2:15-cv-00010-KJN Document 17 Filed 10/18/16 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

(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. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent 

manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances. . .” exist. Harvest 

v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The

moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control. . . .” Id.

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

 In his motion, plaintiff contends he would suffer hardship and prejudice if his motion to 

amend is not granted. In addition, he argues that he has been required to pay the court’s filing 

fee. However, in his proposed amended complaint, plaintiff again raises the same allegations the 

court found barred under Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (dismissing a § 1983 

action seeking declaratory relief and money damages because a successful challenge to the 

procedures used in a prison disciplinary hearing would necessarily imply the invalidity of the 

punishment imposed), and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (holding that a state 

prisoner may not recover damages under § 1983 for allegedly unconstitutional imprisonment, or 

for any other harm caused by “actions whose unlawfulness would render the imprisonment 

invalid,” unless he can prove that the conviction or other basis for confinement has been reversed 

on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to 

make such a determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of 

habeas corpus). 

As plaintiff was previously informed, 

plaintiff’s civil rights action must be dismissed without prejudice so 

that plaintiff may first seek habeas relief with respect to the prison 

disciplinary conviction at issue. See Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 

1023 (9th Cir. 1997) (complaint barred where prisoner sought 

damages based on allegations that prison officials relied on false 

Case 2:15-cv-00010-KJN Document 17 Filed 10/18/16 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

information to find him ineligible for parole); Hernandez v. Lozano, 

2014 WL 1096937 (E.D. Cal. March 19, 2014) (§ 1983 claim that 

prison officials participated in a cover-up of a fraudulent rules 

violation charge barred because success would necessarily call into 

question the validity of prison disciplinary proceeding). 

(ECF No. 13 at 4.) Review of this court’s records reflects that petitioner has not filed a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus challenging the November 13, 2013 prison disciplinary. 

Moreover, plaintiff’s filing provides no facts, circumstances, or evidence to support an 

order vacating the judgment. Plaintiff fails to allege mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

neglect, or any other facts demonstrating that relief under Rule 60(b) is appropriate. Thus, 

plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment is denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s May 4, 2016 motion (ECF No. 15) is construed as a motion for relief from 

judgment, and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 15) is denied.

Dated: October 18, 2016

davi0010.60b

Case 2:15-cv-00010-KJN Document 17 Filed 10/18/16 Page 3 of 3