(PC) Smith v. Parriot ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-0286 JLT GSA (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN THE CASE ) AND CONDUCT ADDITIONAL FACT FINDINGS 14 PARRIOT, et al., ) ) (Docs. 71, 72) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Lawrence Christopher Smith is a state prisoner, who proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis 18 with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 2, 2022, the Court 19 determined Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and the action was barred by Heck v. 20 Humphrey. (Doc. 69.) The Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations, granted the 21 defendants’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a petition for writ of 22 habeas corpus, and directed the clerk to entry judgment in favor of the defendants. (See id.) 23 Following the entry of judgment, Plaintiff filed a “motion for additional fact findings per Rule 24 59” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 71 at 1.) Plaintiff observes that the Court indicated 25 it performed a “de novo review of the case” but asserts that “it was not stipulated as to if such a review 26 consisted of solely ruling on the merits of captioned motions and the contents therein such as” the 27 following documents: 28 . a. Compulsion order (ECF No. 42) b. Reply in regard to defendants’ opposition to motion to amend (ECF No. 40) 1 c. Stay of proceedings (ECF No. 48) d. Stay of proceedings (ECF No. 62) 2 e. Motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 66) 3 (See Doc. 71 at 2.) Plaintiff asserts his pleadings “should have been liberally construed as objections 4 to the defendants (sic) assertions of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and an Heck bar on a 5 hypertechnical point. . .” (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff seeks “clarification of such facts in order to 6 ascertain if an appeal on this matter is warranted for an abuse of discretion and/or clear error.” (Id.) 7 The assigned magistrate judge observed: “Where the Court’s ruling has resulted in a final 8 judgment or order, as here, a motion for reconsideration may be based either on Rule 59(e) (motion to 9 alter or amend judgment), or Rule 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment) of the Federal Rules of 10 Civil Procedure.” (Doc. 72 at 3, citing, e.g., Faison v. Branstad, 2022 WL 4490168, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 11 Sept. 26, 2022).) The magistrate judge found “Plaintiff fails to meet any of the requirements for 12 granting a motion under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b).” (Id. at 3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 13 recommended Plaintiff’s motion be denied. (Id. at 5.) 14 Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 73.) Plaintiff maintains 15 his questioning of the “competency of the ruling” was proper because he does not believe that the 16 Court considered the statements he offered under penalty of perjury “in motions and pleadings” in 17 reviewing the merits of summary judgment. (Id.) 18 Significantly, as the Court previously informed Plaintiff, it conducted a de novo review of the 19 entire matter prior to adopting the findings of the magistrate judge that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his 20 administrative remedies and the action is barred by Heck. (See Doc. 69 at 2.) Plaintiff identifies no 21 evidence that he exhausted his administrative remedies, either in the documents identified above or in 22 his objections to the Findings and Recommendations. Furthermore, as the Court previously observed, 23 his challenge to the use of force in the alleged underlying incident is barred by Heck: “Plaintiff has not 24 challenged Defendants’ evidence that he was convicted of violating Penal Code § 69 as against 25 Defendant Gutierrez for the incident that occurred on February 25, 2015, which is referenced in 26 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, nor does he dispute that the conviction has not been reversed, 27 expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” (Id. at 28 24-25.) Plaintiff does not dispute this determination or offer any evidence that contradicts the 1 || findings. 2 Again, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 3 || 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. The Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 4 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Plaintiff fails to show further factual findings—or relief 5 || from judgement—are appropriate in this action. Neither his disagreement with the Court’s order nor 6 || his speculation regarding the extent of the Court’s are grounds for relief under Rule 59 and Rule 60. 7 || Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 24, 2022 (Doc. 72) are 9 ADOPTED in full. 10 2. Plaintiff's motion to reopen this case and conduct additional fact findings (Doc. 71) is 11 DENIED. 12 13 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: _ November 18, 2022 ( LAW ph L. wan 15 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28