541 F. App'x 709
7th Cir.2013Background
- Michael Mejia, an Illinois prisoner, alleged correctional officers retaliated against him for grievances and a prior suit by issuing false disciplinary charges and sanctions.
- The district court screened the §1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915A and dismissed it as barred by Edwards v. Balisok because Mejia’s disciplinary sanctions remained in force.
- Mejia moved to reconsider, arguing he lost no good-time credits and that lesser intra-prison discipline falls outside Edwards (citing Muhammad v. Close and Simpson v. Nickel); the district court denied that motion.
- Mejia failed to timely appeal the original dismissal, instead filing a second post-judgment motion; the second motion was treated as a Rule 60(b)(6) motion and denied, and Mejia appealed that denial only after the original appeal period had lapsed.
- The Seventh Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to review the original dismissal (appeal untimely) and limited review to whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b)(6) motion; it affirmed the denial.
- The court also concluded the district court erred in designating this suit as a §1915(g) “strike,” reasoning Edwards and Heck concern timing/ripeness rather than merits, and therefore this action and appeal are not strikes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mejia’s §1983 claim is barred by Edwards/Heck because disciplinary sanctions remain in force | Mejia: sanctions did not affect good-time credits; lesser discipline falls outside Edwards per Muhammad and Simpson | Defendants: Edwards bars challenges to ongoing disciplinary decisions until those decisions are vacated | Court: Could not review original dismissal (untimely appeal); affirms denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief and leaves Edwards-based dismissal intact for purposes of that judgment |
| Whether the district court should have reopened the judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) | Mejia: repeated motions justify reconsideration (arguing Edwards inapplicable) | District court: denied successive motion; no extraordinary circumstances warranting Rule 60(b)(6) relief | Court: No abuse of discretion in denying Rule 60(b)(6) relief; Mejia failed to show extraordinary post-judgment circumstances |
| Whether the appeal was timely and whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the original dismissal | Mejia: challenged the substance of the original dismissal in his brief | Defendants: original appeal period expired; only the Rule 60 motion denial is properly before the court | Court: Appeal as to original dismissal untimely; appellate jurisdiction limited to review of Rule 60 denial |
| Whether this suit and appeal constitute a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) | Mejia: his claims are supported by precedent (Muhammad, Simpson) and are not frivolous | District court: characterized the suit as dismissible under Edwards/Heck and counted it as a strike | Court: District court did not make requisite factual finding of frivolousness; Edwards/Heck address ripeness/timing not merits; not a §1915(g) strike |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (federal §1983 suit challenging disciplinary procedures barred unless disciplinary decision vacated)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§1983 claims incompatible with conviction/penalty invalid unless conviction set aside)
- Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004) (distinguishing types of prison disciplinary consequences for Heck/Edwards applicability)
- Simpson v. Nickel, 450 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 2006) (Seventh Circuit application limiting Edwards scope for certain intra-prison discipline)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (limits on using Rule 60(b) to circumvent habeas/claim preclusion principles)