Carlos Martinez, a.k.a. Pedro Saucedo Calderon v. Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Carlos Martinez’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) seeking relief from the determination that he was a three-strikes litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court held that two prior dismissals, Martinez I and Martinez II, qualified as strikes because the cases were dismissed for failure to state a claim, and that the plaintiff had not shown grounds for reconsideration. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the filing fee in full within 30 days or voluntarily dismiss the action.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b) because he supplied no legal or factual basis showing mistake, voidness, or another ground justifying relief from the prior order.
2. Martinez I and Martinez II each qualified as a separate strike because each case was terminated after denial of in forma pauperis status on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from the determination that he was a three-strikes litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2. Whether the dismissals in Martinez I and Martinez II qualified as separate strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Disposition

other