Shatswell v. Taylor ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DANNY MICHAEL SHATSWELL, Case No. 19-cv-06883-EMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. RECONSIDERATION 10 J. TAYLOR, et al., Docket No. 12 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 Last month, the Court dismissed this action because the complaint’s allegations that 15 Plaintiff improperly had been removed from a college program and denied the opportunity to earn 16 a second G.E.D. failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Docket No. 10. The 17 Court explained that a § 1983 claim was not stated because there is no federal constitutional right 18 to an education and, even if there is such a right, Plaintiff did not state a factually plausible claim 19 that he was deprived of Educational Merit Credits (available upon earning a college degree) 20 because he had not taken enough classes that it was at all likely that he could obtain a degree in 21 short time available before he finished his prison term – i.e., given that his transcript reflected he 22 had only started one 3-unit class in Fall 2018 and completed his prison term on November 17, 23 2019, it was not plausible that Plaintiff “would have been able to take enough courses in one or 24 two terms to earn a college degree, even if Defendants had not allegedly prevented him from 25 completing the single 3-unit course he started in Fall 2018 and had not disallowed further college 26 courses.” Docket No. 10 at 4. 27 Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration, arguing that he “has read case law that states 1 right” and because he had taken some unspecified college courses earlier in life that might help 2 him earn a second Associate’s degree. Docket No. 12. 3 A party may move to alter or amend a judgment in a motion filed no later than 28 days 4 after entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion for reconsideration under Federal 5 Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) “‘should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 6 unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 7 there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 8 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). 9 Plaintiff has not shown newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in 10 the law. Although he believes he there is a constitutional right to an education in prison, Plaintiff 11 identifies no particular cases so holding and the Court has not located any cases suggesting that 12 there is a federal constitutional right to an education in prison. Plaintiff’s argument that maybe he 13 could have earned an Associate’s degree is unpersuasive. Plaintiff states that he has an 14 Associate’s degree with some unspecified amount of credits earned toward a Bachelor’s degree 15 that he “could have easily used . . . to earn an Associate of Science degree.” Id. Even if the 16 regulation permitted an inmate to earn Educational Merit Credits based on the attainment of a 17 second Associate’s degree, the regulation plainly requires that the inmate earn at least 50% of the 18 necessary units while serving his or her current term. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3043.5(c) 19 (“Educational Merit Credit shall not be awarded for an associate . . . degree, unless the inmate 20 earned at least 50 percent of the units necessary for that degree while serving his or her current 21 term.”). But Plaintiff does not state that he had already earned enough credits and had done so 22 during his prison term so that he could obtain a second Associate’s degree before the end of his 23 prison term. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief from the order of dismissal because he has not 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 alleged facts plausibly showing that he could have earned enough credits in the short time period 2 available to him to obtain the Educational Merit Credit and, even if he could, the fact remains that 3 || there is no federal constitutional right to an education in prison. For these reasons, Plaintiff's 4 || motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Docket No. 12. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: February 10, 2020 9 Lx 10 □ hes □ ED M. CHEN United States District Judge 12 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28