Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00996/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00996-1/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 K’NAPP,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13cv00996 AWI DLB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

AND FINAL JUDGMENT

(Document 7)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO 

RE-OPEN CASE

Plaintiff Eric K’napp (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action on 

June 28, 2013. 

On August 2, 2013, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis on the basis that Plaintiff had three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and had not 

met the imminent danger requirement. The action was dismissed without prejudice on August 2, 

2013.

On August 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief from Order of Dismissal and Final 

Judgment. 

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[o]n motion and upon such 

terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final 

judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 

excusable neglect;. . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of judgment.” This 

Case 1:13-cv-00996-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 09/03/13 Page 1 of 2
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

may include mistake and inadvertence by the court. See Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake 

Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 350 (9th Cir. 1999).

Here, Plaintiff contends that this Court, in 1:08-cv-01779 AWI BAM, Knapp v. Cate, held 

that two of the three dismissals that the Court relied on in the August 2, 2013, order were not strikes 

pursuant to 1915(g). Plaintiff is correct. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED re-open 

this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2013 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

0m8i788

Case 1:13-cv-00996-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 09/03/13 Page 2 of 2