Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00870/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00870-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Connie Gipson
Defendant
Guillermo Vera
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLERMO VERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, Warden,

Defendant.

1:13-cv-00870 AWI MJS PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION AND REOPENING CASE (Doc. 13)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CONVERT ACTION FROM A HABEAS 

ACTION TO A CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO SEPARATELY FILE THE CIVIL RIGHTS 

COMPLIANT ATTACHED TO PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO AMEND THE FINDINGS (Doc. 

13) AS AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ISSUE PRISONER NEW CASE 

DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on June 10, 2013. (Pet., 

ECF No. 1.) In the petition, Plaintiff requests a subpoena duces tecum to obtain certain 

medical records. (Pet. at 4.) On June 21, 2013 the Magistrate Judge recommended that 

the petition be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and informed Plaintiff

Case 1:13-cv-00870-AWI-MJS Document 14 Filed 02/25/14 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

that he could instead proceed by way of a separate civil rights complaint. On November 

12, 2013, the Court adopted the findings and recommendation, and dismissed the matter 

without prejudice. 

On November 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend. (Doc. 13.) In the motion, 

Plaintiff notified the Court that the Court incorrectly granted in forma pauperis status for a 

civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, rather than granting in forma 

pauperis for a habeas corpus petition. (ECF No. 3.) Accordingly, Plaintiff became 

obligated to pay the filing fee for a civil action of $350.00 rather than $5.00 filing fee for a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the filings. 

The federal courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Hamilton v. 

United States, 67 F.3d 761, 764 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 

(1980) (quotation omitted)). Consistent with such duty, the Court will construe Plaintiff's 

November 27, 2013 motion to amend the findings as a motion for reconsideration. 

The Court noted in dismissing the habeas action that in an appropriate case a 

habeas petition may be construed as a Section 1983 complaint. Wilwording v. Swenson, 

404 U.S. 249, 251, 92 S. Ct. 407, 30 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1971); Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 

728, 729-30 (9th Cir. 1974). The Court noted the differences in filing fees between the 

two types of actions and that a civil rights complaint dismissed as malicious, frivolous, or 

for failure to state a claim could count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

However, as noted by Plaintiff, even though Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus, the Court incorrectly granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status based on 

the filing of civil rights complaint, thereby requiring Plaintiff to pay a $350.00 filing fee. 

Accordingly, the reason for the Court's dismissal of the action, namely to prevent Plaintiff 

from being required to pay the civil filing fee, was negated. Furthermore, by filing an 

amended civil rights complaint on the form provided by the Court, Plaintiff has indicated 

his intent to proceed with a civil rights complaint.

Case 1:13-cv-00870-AWI-MJS Document 14 Filed 02/25/14 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

Rule 60(b)(1) provides as follows: "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: [ ] mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." Here, 

due to mistake by the Court, there is good reason to grant Plaintiff's motion for 

reconsideration. The Court shall order the Clerk of Court to re-open the matter and redesignate it as a civil rights action. 

II. ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED;

2. The Clerk of Court shall re-open the present matter and re-designate it as 

a civil rights complaint;

3. The Clerk of Court is also ordered to separately file the complaint attached 

to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. 13.) as an amended complaint under a 

separate docket entry; and

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue prisoner new case documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END:

92b0h

Case 1:13-cv-00870-AWI-MJS Document 14 Filed 02/25/14 Page 3 of 3