Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05088/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05088-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Freemen
Defendant
Labans
Defendant
Luiz Muratalla-Lua
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIZ MURATALLA-LUA

Plaintiff, 

 v.

Correctional Officer LABANS and

Correctional Officer FREEMEN, 

Defendants. /

No. C 07-5088 WHA (PR) 

ORDER DENYING

RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 28)

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Defendants’ motion to dismiss

the case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was granted, and the case was dismissed

without prejudice. Specifically, plaintiff had not completed his administrative remedies until

after he filed this case. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (action

must be dismissed unless prisoner exhausted his available administrative remedies before filing

suit). 

Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure in which he claims that he did not exhaust his claims before filing suit because

he was relying on the assistance of “jailhouse lawyers,” and he had to “adjust to their schedule.” 

Plaintiff’s contention that this entitles him to reconsideration on the grounds of “mistake” or

“inadvertence” under Rule 60(b)(1) is without merit. See Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co.,

452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (reconsideration is not allowed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1)

Case 3:07-cv-05088-WHA Document 29 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

based on an attorney’s mistakes). Plaintiff’s alternative argument that he is entitled to

reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(6) also fails. The shortcomings of a “jailhouse attorney” do

not constitute “extraordinary circumstances” warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See Samish

Indian Tribe v. Washington, 394 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005) (Rule 60(b)(6) requires

showing that “extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to

prevent or correct an erroneous judgment”); cf. Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th

Cir. 2006) (pro se status not “extraordinary circumstance” in context of equitable tolling

analysis). Moreover, exhaustion is mandatory and not left to the discretion of the district court,

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006), and there is no authority that the PLRA’s exhaustion

requirement may be excused because an inmate received poor legal advice from another inmate. 

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration (docket number 28) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.07\MURATALLA-LUA5088.REC.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-05088-WHA Document 29 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 2