Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Montana denied James Morrison’s motion to alter or amend an order revoking his in forma pauperis status. The court construed the motion as one for reconsideration and held that Morrison had sufficient opportunity to contest the identified strikes, which included prior dismissals involving tribal sovereignty, immunity, and other fatal deficiencies. The court ordered Morrison to pay the $405 filing fee by April 6, 2026, or the action would be closed.
Holdings
- The filing was not a proper Rule 59(e) motion because no judgment had been entered; it was properly construed as a motion for reconsideration under District of Montana Local Rule 7.3.
- Morrison was not entitled to notice or an additional opportunity to be heard before the court denied or revoked his in forma pauperis status, and his motion independently gave him an opportunity to be heard.
- A later change in substantive law does not require retroactive reassessment of whether an earlier action qualified as a strike under § 1915(g).
- A dismissal may qualify as a strike for failure to state a claim when a fatal deficiency, including lack of jurisdiction, a Heck bar, or immunity, is apparent from the face of the complaint and relief cannot be granted.
- Morrison had at least three dismissals qualifying as strikes and was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.
Questions Presented
- Whether Morrison's filing was a proper motion to alter or amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
- Whether Morrison was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before the court revoked or denied his in forma pauperis status.
- Whether changes in substantive law required retroactive reassessment of a prior dismissal for purposes of determining a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
- Whether dismissals based on lack of jurisdiction, a Heck bar, or clearly applicable immunity can qualify as dismissals for failure to state a claim under § 1915(g).
- Whether Morrison had accumulated at least three qualifying strikes and therefore could not proceed in forma pauperis.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005)(distinguished)
- Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 697 (9th Cir. 2022)(followed)
- Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
- Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495-96 (9th Cir. 1996)(followed)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)(applied indirectly)
- Harris v. Harris, 935 F.3d 670, 676 (9th Cir. 2019)(followed)
- Morrison v. Spang, CV 10-150-BLG-RFC(applied)
- Morrison v. Yellowstone County, et al., CV 24-46-BLG-SPW-TIC(applied)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…