Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00996/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00996-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC C. R. K’NAPP,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00996 AWI DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

[ECF No. 13]

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PAY 

THE FILING FEE IN FULL WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Eric C. R. K’napp, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 28, 2013. The matter was 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 302.

On May 28, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

recommended Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status be revoked and Plaintiff be ordered to pay the 

filing fee in full. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained 

notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On June 11, 2015, Plaintiff 

filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. 

In his objections, Plaintiff contends inter alia that the Court should reject the F&R based 

on the law of the case doctrine. Plaintiff argues that this Court has already determined that the 

three cases cited cannot be considered as strikes, and therefore the Court should follow that 

determination as the law of the case. 

Case 1:13-cv-00996-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 06/16/15 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Under the “law of the case” doctrine, “a court is generally precluded from reconsidering 

an issue that has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical case.” 

Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir. 1993). The doctrine is not a limitation on a 

tribunal’s power, but rather a guide to discretion. Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 

(1983). The law of the case doctrine “does not apply to circumstances where a district court 

seeks to reconsider an order over which it has not been divested of jurisdiction.” Robins v. 

Spokeo, Inc., 742 F.3d 409, 411 (9th Cir. 2014); United States v. Smith, 389 F.3d 944, 949-50 

(9th Cir. 2004). Where the law of the case doctrine does apply, a “court may have discretion to 

depart from the law of the case where: (1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; (2) an 

intervening change in the law has occurred; (3) the evidence on remand is substantially different; 

(4) other changed circumstances exist; or (5) a manifest injustice would otherwise result.” 

United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997). 

In this case, the Court ruled that the cases cited as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

could not be considered strikes because none of the cases specifically stated that they were 

dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. Thereafter, in Knapp v. Hogan, 

738 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), the Ninth Circuit held that these three cases were indeed strikes 

under § 1915(g). In addition, the Ninth Circuit determined that Plaintiff was subject to § 1915(g) 

after having accrued five strikes. Id. In light of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Hogan, the law of 

the case doctrine does not bar this Court from reconsidering and revoking Plaintiff’s in forma 

pauperis status. Under Robins and Smith, this Court has not lost jurisdiction over the case and is 

free to apply Hogan at this time. See Robins, 742 F.3d at 411; Smith, 389 F.3d at 949-50. To 

the extent law of the case does apply, the first and second Alexander considerations provide the 

bases for the Court to depart from the law of the case doctrine.

1 Alexander, 106 F.3d at 876. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

 

1 The Ninth Circuit has recognized that its case law “leaves some doubt concerning whether the law of the case 

doctrine constrains a district court’s discretion to reconsider it owns rulings prior to final judgment.” Mark H. v. 

Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922, 932 n.8 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Alexander and Smith). 

Case 1:13-cv-00996-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 06/16/15 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 28, 2015, are ADOPTED in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is REVOKED; and

3. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the filing fee in full within thirty (30) days, or suffer 

dismissal of the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00996-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 06/16/15 Page 3 of 3