Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01701/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01701-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL SIMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

1:13-cv-01701-JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION 

OF ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS 

BARRED BY HECK v. HUMPHRY, 512 U.S. 

477 (1994) 

(Docs. 13)

Plaintiff, Earl Simpson, is a civil detainee who is currently proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on October 23, 2013. (Doc. 

1.) This action was dismissed without prejudice on April 1, 2014 and judgment was entered that 

same date. (Docs. 11, 12.) Over five months later, on September 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 

document entitled "Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition and Requesting to Vacate and 

[sic] Order of a Judgment" which is presently before the Court and is construed as a motion for 

reconsideration. (Doc. 13.)

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

for any reason that justifies relief. 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) (quotations marks and citation omitted). 

Case 1:13-cv-01701-JLT Document 14 Filed 10/10/14 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

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

(quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that 

Plaintiff show "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 

"why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion."

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, and it may not be used to raise arguments or 

present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 

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

Cir. 2009).

On February 7, 2014, an order issued giving Plaintiff 30 days to show cause ("OSC") why 

this action should not be dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The 

OSC, to which Plaintiff failed to respond, identified that, in the Complaint, under "Statement of 

Claim" Plaintiff alleges that he is being held hostage in a state institution and that he has not been 

released to the principal place of his business (id., at 3); that he "is transferring his principal [sic] 

place of business out of the state of california [sic] in which he as a person he [sic] would be 

considered the business"(id., at 6); and that he is held "in unlawful custody" and seeks his release 

(id., at 7). As stated in the OSC, Plaintiff is barred from bringing an action based on these 

allegations under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey. 

Plaintiff has not shown that the Court erred in its application of the law to the facts. 

Plaintiff's simple disagreement with the Court=s determination provides no basis for vacating the 

judgment entered in this case and dismissing the criminal case under which he was found guilty 

that Plaintiff seeks. 

The Court carefully reviewed Plaintiff=s amended complaint and detailed the reasons 

Plaintiff was barred from pursuing this action under Heck v. Humphrey. Plaintiff=s motion fails to 

set forth any grounds entitling him to reconsideration of the order dismissing this action.

/ / /

Case 1:13-cv-01701-JLT Document 14 Filed 10/10/14 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

Accordingly, Plaintiff=s motion, filed September 24, 2014 (Doc. 13), is HEREBY 

ORDERED DENIED, with prejudice. No further motions for reconsideration will be considered 

and if one is filed, it will be summarily stricken from the record. At this juncture, further recourse 

lies with the appellate court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 9, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01701-JLT Document 14 Filed 10/10/14 Page 3 of 3