Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00493/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00493-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEO ARCHER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0493 FCD DAD P

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se with a civil rights action seeking

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s request for reconsideration

pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 22, 2006, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s

complaint and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim because no court had yet determined that

plaintiff’s confinement is or was illegal. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). 

On January 5, 2007, the undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations in full and

dismissed this action without prejudice. Plaintiff subsequently filed a timely request for

reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 2:06-cv-00493-FCD-DAD Document 19 Filed 04/09/10 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

2

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 

In his request for reconsideration, plaintiff argues that the court erroneously

considered him to be a prisoner for purposes of screening his complaint. In fact, plaintiff notes,

he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and is committed for the sole purpose of mental

health treatment. Plaintiff also argues that he paid the filing fee for this civil action. For these

reasons, plaintiff appears to contend that the magistrate judge was not required to screen his

complaint and should have ordered service of the complaint on the defendants. (Pl.’s Req. for

Recons. at 1-14) 

Plaintiff also argues that the named defendants in this action inflicted numerous

constitutional violations upon him. For example, plaintiff contends that the defendants allegedly

denied him due process, infringed on his liberty and property interests, and denied him effective

assistance of counsel. Plaintiff concludes that his claims for damages were meritorious and

arguable and that he should have at least been given the opportunity to amend his complaint

before the court dismissed his case. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the judgment in this case

and an order directing service of his complaint on the defendants. (Id.) 

DISCUSSION

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: 

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a

party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due

diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a

new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore

denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other 

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the

judgment has been satisfied . . .; or (6) any other reason justifying

relief from the operation of the judgment. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Here, the court finds that plaintiff is entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1). 

See, e.g., Kingvision Pay-Per-View v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 350 (9th Cir. 1999) (Rule

Case 2:06-cv-00493-FCD-DAD Document 19 Filed 04/09/10 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

3

60(b)(1) includes mistakes by the court). Specifically, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the court is

required to screen “a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a

governmental entity or officer. . . .” Section 1915A(c) defines as “prisoner” as:

any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused

of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for,

violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole,

probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c). As noted above, plaintiff has been found not guilty by reason of insanity

and is civilly committed. In this regard, it appears that plaintiff is not a “prisoner” for purposes

of the screening requirement set forth in § 1915A(a). Cf. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140

(9th Cir. 2000) (civil detainee under Sexually Violent Predator Act was not a “prisoner” subject

to exhaustion or in forma pauperis requirements under Prison Litigation Reform Act); Michau v.

Charleston County, S.C., 434 F.3d 725 (4th Cir. 2006) (civil detainee under Sexually Violent

Predator Act was not subject to complaint screening requirement under Prison Litigation Reform

Act because he was not a “prisoner” for purposes of § 1915A(c)); see also Jones v. United

States, 463 U.S. 354, 368 (1983) (“The purpose of commitment following an insanity acquittal,

like that of civil commitment, is to treat the individual’s mental illness and protect him and

society from his potential dangerousness.”). 

In addition, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is required to dismiss a case if

it determines that the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief

may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). In this case, however, plaintiff paid the filing fee in full. In

this regard, plaintiff’s complaint is not subject to the screening requirement for in forma pauperis

actions under § 1915(e). Accordingly, the court will grant plaintiff’s request for reconsideration

and refer this matter back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00493-FCD-DAD Document 19 Filed 04/09/10 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

4

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration (Doc. No. 18) is granted; 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-open this case; and

3. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings in

accordance with this order. See Local Rule 302 & 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

DATED: April 8, 2010.

Case 2:06-cv-00493-FCD-DAD Document 19 Filed 04/09/10 Page 4 of 4