Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Keith Jerome Wright’s motion for reconsideration in limited part. The court determined that a dismissal in Wright v. FNU Petty was mistakenly attributed to him and therefore did not count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), but held that Wright remained subject to the three-strikes bar based on three other actions and that the issue was moot because he had paid the filing fee.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should grant relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) because it mistakenly attributed the FNU Petty action to plaintiff.
- Whether correction of that mistake required restoration of plaintiff's in forma pauperis status when three other qualifying strikes remained.
- Whether plaintiff's challenge to the in forma pauperis ruling was moot after he paid the filing fee.
Holdings
- The court granted reconsideration in limited part because the FNU Petty action was filed by a different individual with the same name and therefore could not be counted as plaintiff's strike.
- Correcting the erroneous attribution of one action did not require disturbing the revocation of plaintiff's in forma pauperis status because plaintiff remained subject to the three-strikes bar based on three other actions.
- The issue was moot because the court had received plaintiff's filing fee.
Key quotations
“With respect to “mistake” under Rule 60(b)(1), a party “may seek relief from an excusable mistake on the part of a party or counsel, or if the district court has made a substantive error of law or fact in its judgment or order.”” (at 1)
“Because Plaintiff did not file FNU Petty, it should not be assessed as a strike.” (at 2)
Factual background
The court had identified four prior dismissals as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), including Wright v. FNU Petty. Plaintiff asserted that the FNU Petty action belonged to another person and that he had never been incarcerated at the facility associated with that case. Review of inmate identification numbers confirmed that two different individuals named Keith Wright were involved, and plaintiff had not filed the FNU Petty action. The remaining three identified actions were not challenged, and plaintiff paid the filing fee on December 20, 2024.
Procedural history
The court initially granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, then revoked that status after finding that plaintiff was subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), based on four alleged qualifying dismissals. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration and simultaneously filed a notice of appeal. The court issued an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, and after dismissal of the appeal, granted reconsideration in limited part. The court concluded that one action had been attributed to a different individual but declined to restore in forma pauperis status because three other qualifying actions remained and plaintiff had already paid the filing fee.