Opinion
No. CIV 05-2287-PHX-SMM (LOA).
August 21, 2006
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's June 28, 2006 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. #14). The Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion.
I. Background
On August 1, 2005, Plaintiff Jimmy Lee Williams, confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court, on February 2, 2006, dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 3, 2006 (Doc. #8), which the Court dismissed on June 16, 2006. On the same date, the Court also dismissed this action and judgment was entered.
In its June 16, 2006 Order, the Court found first that Plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations because Plaintiff's claims related to a 1995 recommendation by the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency to the Governor regarding Plaintiff's criminal conviction. The Court found that Plaintiff's claims accrued ten years before the filing of the Complaint and were therefore barred by the statute of limitations.
The Court also found that even if Plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations, Plaintiff's claims were still subject to dismissal because the members of the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency were entitled to immunity for their actions taken with respect to prisoner's sentence and release.
II. Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
"A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) `should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.'" McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) ( en banc, per curiam) (emphasis in original) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).
In his Motion, Plaintiff argues first that his claims are not barred by the statute of limitations and second that the Board of Executive Clemency is not immune from suit in this case.
With respect to the statute of limitations, Plaintiff asserts that his claims accrued in 2002, that the statute of limitations was tolled while he exhausted state court remedies, and that his August 2005 filing in this Court is therefore timely. However, Plaintiff offers no facts in the Amended Complaint that would support the claim that his allegations accrued in 2002. Plaintiff states only that the Board made its recommendation, which Plaintiff contends violated his due process rights, in 1995. The Court does not find that reconsideration on this issue is appropriate.
With respect to immunity for the Board of Executive Clemency, Plaintiff argues that "the Board members are not immune from civil suit because the Eleventh Amendment does not forbid suing state officials in their individual capacities."
The source of the members of the Board of Executive Clemency's immunity is not in the Eleventh Amendment, which prohibits suits against the state in federal court. The members of the Board of Executive Clemency are immune from suit because their official actions are comparable to those of judges. Judges, prosecutors and members of the Board of Executive Clemency are immune from liability in § 1983 actions. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding judges and prosecutors are immune from liability for damages under § 1983); Sellars v. Procunier, 641 F.2d 1295, 1303 (9th Cir. 1981) (concluding that members of parole board are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for performance of their duties). Like judges, members of the Board of Clemency are immune to suit under § 1983 because they "face the same risk of constant unfounded suits by those disappointed by the [] board's decisions." Sellars, 641 F.2d at 1303. Accordingly, the Court finds no basis for reconsideration in Plaintiff's immunity arguments.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's June 28, 2006 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. #14) is denied.