Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01586/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01586-3/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

KEITH JEROME WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01586 JLT GSA (PC)

INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION IN LIMITED PART

(Doc. 16)

Keith Jerome Wright was initially granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this 

action. However, upon review of Plaintiff’s litigation history, the Court found Plaintiff is subject 

to the three strikes bar of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Therefore, the Court revoked Plaintiff’s in forma 

pauperis status, declared him a three-strike litigant, and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in 

full to proceed with this action. (Docs. 13, 15.) Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the 

Court’s order revoking his in forma pauperis status, reporting the Court erred in identifying one 

of the four strikes discussed in the order. (Doc. 16.) 

Notably, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal the same day as the pending motion, as Plaintiff 

signed both the motion and notice of appeal on December 5, 2024; and the Court received both 

documents on December 12, 2024. In general, the filing of a notice of appeal divests the court of 

jurisdiction “over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 

1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997). However, it appears the simultaneous filing of a notice of appeal and 

Case 1:23-cv-01586-JLT-GSA Document 20 Filed 12/23/24 Page 1 of 4
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

a motion for reconsideration does not divest a district court of jurisdiction. See Sanders v. 

Matthew, 2016 WL 11486352, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016)); see also Miller v. Marriott 

Int'l, Inc., 300 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Under [Rule 4(a)(4)(A), the [plaintiffs’] Rule 

60(b) motions prevented the [plaintiffs’] notices of appeal from becoming effective until the 

district court ruled on the merits of those motions.”). Even if the notice of appeal divests this 

Court of jurisdiction, Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure permits the Court to treat 

Plaintiff’s motion as a request for an indicative ruling. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a); see also 

Kajberouni v. Bear Valley Cmty. Servs. Dist., 2021 WL 1907606, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2021) 

(observing “there is authority indicating that simultaneous filings do not operate to divest a 

district court of jurisdiction,” but issuing an “indicative ruling” under Rule 62.1 in “an abundance 

of caution”) (emphasis in original); Braun–Salinas v. Am. Family Ins. Grp., 2015 WL 128040, at 

*2 (D. Or. Jan. 8, 2015) (applying Rule 62.1 to a motion for reconsideration filed after a notice of 

appeal). Accordingly, the Court issues this as an indicative ruling. 

As noted above, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order revoking his in forma 

pauperis status. (Doc. 16.) Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[o]n 

motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final 

judgment, order, or proceeding.” Id. Rule 60(b) indicates such relief may be granted “for the 

following reasons:”

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, 

could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial 

under Rule 59(b); 

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 

(4) the judgment is void; 

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is 

based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or 

applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

Case 1:23-cv-01586-JLT-GSA Document 20 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 4
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

Plaintiff appears to bring his motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), asserting mistake of the 

Court. 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.” Bretana v. Int’l Collection Corp., 2010 WL 1221925, at *1 

(N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Utah ex. Rel. Div. of Forestry v. United States, 528 F.3d 712, 722-23 

(10th Cir. 2008)). In general, “an inadvertent mistake involves a misunderstanding of the 

surrounding facts and circumstances.” Melo v. Zumper, Inc., 2020 WL 1891796, at*3 (N.D. Cal. 

Apr. 16, 2020) (citing Eskridge v. Cook Cty., 577 F.3d 806, 809 (7th Cir. 2009)).

Plaintiff contends the Court erred in its analysis regarding the cases qualifying as strikes 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In the order revoking the in forma pauperis status, the Court 

identified four dismissals it determined qualified as strikes:

1. Wright v. Sacramento Police Dep’t, Case No. 2:13-cv-02125 EFB 

(E.D. Cal. Aug 8, 2014) (dismissed for failure to amend after 

determination that matter failed to state a claim)

2. Wright v. Bank of America, Case No. 2:16-cv-01858 MCE CKD 

(E.D. Cal. Jan 31, 2017) (dismissal for failure to amend after 

determination that matter failed to state a claim)

3. Wright v. Sherman, Case No. 1:21-cv-01111 DAD SAB (E.D. Cal. 

Feb. 22, 2022) (voluntary dismissal after the recommendation for 

dismissal for failure to state a claim)

4. Wright v. FNU Petty, Case No. 5:18-cv-00158-D (W.D. Ok., 

dismissed June 26, 2018)

(Doc. 15.) Seeking reconsideration, Plaintiff asserts that FNU Petty “does not belong to Plaintiff” 

and he “was never in custody at Tehachapi CCI prison.” (Doc. 16 at 2.) 

To review Plaintiff’s litigation history, the Court ran Plaintiff’s name—Keith Wright—

through its electronic filing system. Following the filing of the instant motion, and upon further 

review of the Court’s records, it appears there are two individuals with the name “Keith Wright”

who are incarcerated in the Eastern District in California. Plaintiff’s assertion of error of fact is 

confirmed with the differing inmate identification numbers for Plaintiff and the individual who 

filed the FNU Petty action, Case No. 5:18-cv-00158-D. Because Plaintiff did not file FNU Petty, 

it should not be assessed as a strike. 

Case 1:23-cv-01586-JLT-GSA Document 20 Filed 12/23/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Nevertheless, Plaintiff remains a three-strikes litigant based upon the other identified 

actions, which are not addressed in the request for reconsideration. (See Doc. 16 at 2.) Toward 

this end, the Court declines to disturb its decision to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. 

Moreover, it appears the issue may now be moot, because the Court received the filing fee in this 

action on December 20, 2024.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above the court makes the following indicative 

ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1. If the Court of Appeals remands this 

case in order for the Court to rule on the pending motion for reconsideration—or if Plaintiff

voluntarily dismisses the appeal in light of the filing fee being paid—the Court will order:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 16) is GRANTED in limited part, to 

find Case No. 5:18-cv-00158-D does not count as a strike.

2. The issue is MOOT, because the Court received payment of the filing fee on 

December 20, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2024 

Case 1:23-cv-01586-JLT-GSA Document 20 Filed 12/23/24 Page 4 of 4