Falcon v. Koening

Background

David A. Falcon, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a disciplinary decision that resulted in the loss of time credits. The court had dismissed the petition under the rule that a prisoner’s claim belongs in a civil-rights action rather than a habeas action when success would not necessarily lead to immediate or faster release.

The earlier dismissal explained that Falcon was serving a 50-years-to-life sentence and still had to be found suitable for parole before release. Restoring his time credits could advance the date of an initial parole hearing, if that date had not already passed, but it would not inevitably result in his release.

Motion for reconsideration

Falcon moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. He argued that the fact that he had not yet been found suitable for parole did not prevent judicial review of his claims through habeas corpus.

The court stated that reconsideration under Rule 59(e) generally requires newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law. It found that Falcon had not shown any of those circumstances. The court also said that arguments about the merits of his due-process claims did not answer the separate question of whether those claims could proceed in a habeas action.

The court concluded that it had correctly applied the rule from Nettles v. Grounds. Even if restoring Falcon’s time credits would affect his parole eligibility or the timing of a parole-suitability hearing, he would still have to be found suitable for parole before release. Because earlier release was not inevitable, the court held that Falcon could not pursue these claims through habeas and that his federal recourse was a civil-rights action. The court denied Falcon’s motion for relief under Rule 59(e).

Deadline to appeal

Falcon requested more time to file a notice of appeal from the dismissal order. He explained that he had not appealed within the usual period because he was moved to a special housing area due to COVID-19 and became separated from his legal papers.

The court found good cause for the delay and granted the motion for an extension of the deadline to file a notice of appeal. It stated that the deadline could not and would not be extended again.

Certificate of appealability

The court stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because reasonable judges would not find it debatable whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the court had correctly made its procedural rulings. The court denied a certificate of appealability without prejudice to Falcon seeking one from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.