Arellano v. Blahnik

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL ARRELLANO, Case No.: 16cv2412-CAB-MSB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 128] 14 BLAHNIK, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On September 27, 2019, this Court issued an Order Denying Rule 60(b) Motion. 18 [Doc. No. 121.] On October 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of that 19 order. [Doc. No. 128.] 20 A. Motion for reconsideration. 21 Although the FRCP do not expressly authorize a motion for reconsideration, “(a) 22 district court has the inherent power to reconsider and modify its interlocutory orders 23 prior to the entry of judgment …” Posthearing Procedures, Cal. Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. 24 Pro. Before Trial, Ch. 12-E, §12:158, quoting Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 US 462, 475 25 (2005). 26 However, reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly.” Absent 27 highly unusual circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will not be granted “unless 28 the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or 1 if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate 2 of Bishop, 229 F3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)(internal quotes omitted). 3 B. Discussion. 4 Here, Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered evidence, nor has he shown 5 clear error or an intervening change in the controlling law. Rather, Plaintiff again seeks 6 clarification of what damages he may seek for his access-to-court claim. Specifically, 7 Plaintiff wants to know why he cannot be granted the relief he would have been granted 8 had it not been for the interference of the official – “such relief is the release from 9 prison.” [Doc. No. 128 at 2, ll. 27-28.] However, even if Plaintiff were to prevail on his 10 access-to-court claim, there is no way that this Court in this action can provide him with 11 the relief of being released from prison. 12 Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ 13 of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions of confinement 14 are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 15 411 U.S. 475, 488-500 (1973). When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or 16 duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is 17 entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole 18 federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 500 (emphasis added). On the other 19 hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a 20 constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of 21 his custody. Id. at 499. If Plaintiff wants the “relief of being released from prison,” then 22 he must file a habeas petition pursuant to § 2254. 23 This Court understands Plaintiff’s frustration. This is exactly the “Catch-22” 24 situation discussed in this Court’s order of August 17, 2017. [See Doc. No. 16 at 4, ll. 3- 25 7.] However, the law is clear that if Plaintiff seeks the “relief of being released from 26 prison,” the only mechanism by which to do that is to file a habeas petition under §2254. 27 Preiser, 411 U.S. at 488-500. 28 1 C. Conclusion 2 For the reasons set forth above, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 3 || Moreover, this Court will not entertain any further motions for clarification or 4 || reconsideration of this issue. Plaintiff free to appeal this Court’s rulings to the 5 || appropriate court of appeals at the appropriate time. In the meantime, this case shall 6 || proceed forward expeditiously to dispositive motions and/or trial. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ||Dated: November 7, 2019 € □ 9 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28