Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-01850/USCOURTS-ca8-08-01850-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1850

___________

Keith Brown El, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Unknown Giessing; R/O Doe I; *

Unknown Doe II, Sgt.; Unknown * [UNPUBLISHED]

Jackson, DHO; Unknown Murphy, *

Nurse, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 11, 2010

 Filed: February 17, 2010

___________

Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Keith Brown El (Brown El), a Missouri inmate, moved to recall our mandate

in this appeal, asserting this court incorrectly attributed to him “strikes,” within the

meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for lawsuits that were filed by a different Missouri

inmate, also named Keith Brown El. Because we have determined Brown El is

correct, and he did not have three qualifying strikes at the time he filed the instant

appeal, we grant his motion to recall the mandate in this appeal, and we reinstate our

previous grant of in forma pauperis status.

Appellate Case: 08-1850 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2010 Entry ID: 3634732
1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri, now retired.

-2-

Brown El appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal without prejudice of his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action. After careful review, we conclude the district court did not

abuse its discretion in dismissing Brown’s action without prejudice for failure to

comply with the court’s order directing him to file an amended complaint. See Smith

v. Gold Dust Casino, 526 F.3d 402, 404-05 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review);

Schooley v. Kennedy, 712 F.2d 372, 374 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (reasoning that

a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) dismissal is without prejudice and this

militates against finding abuse of discretion). We also find no abuse of discretion in

the denial of Brown El’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. See Int’l Bhd.

of Elec. Workers v. Hope Elec. Corp., 293 F.3d 409, 415 (8th Cir. 2002) (stating the

standard of review and explaining Rule 60(b) authorizes relief in only the most

exceptional of cases). We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

_____________________________

Appellate Case: 08-1850 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2010 Entry ID: 3634732