Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00412/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00412-8/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Eric Charles Rodney K’Napp is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On March 6, 2009, Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status. (ECF No. 5.) However, on 

September 7, 2011, Magistrate Judge Cohn revoked Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status by finding that 

Plaintiff suffered three or more strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 22.)

On September 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 23.) On May 30, 2014, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Court’s 

September 7, 2011, order revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status based on intervening authority 

of Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011), which held that “a district court’s dismissal of a 

case does not count as a ‘strike” under § 1915(g) until the litigant has exhausted or waived his 

opportunity to appeal . . . [which] means that a dismissal ripens into a ‘strike’ for § 1915(g) purposes 

on the date of the Supreme Court’s denial of dismissal of a petition for writ of certiorari, if the prisoner 

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K’NAPP,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ARLITZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00412-SAB (PC)

ORDER VACATING ORDER REVOKING 

PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 

AND REINSTATING IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

STATUS PURSUANT TO OPINION BY THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[ECF Nos. 5, 22, 35]

Case 1:09-cv-00412-SAB Document 36 Filed 06/04/14 Page 1 of 2
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

filed one, or from the date when the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari expired, if he did not.” 

Id. at 1100 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Ninth Circuit found that two of the 

four dismissal identified by the district court did not yet count as strikes at the time Plaintiff filed his 

complaint, and the action was remanded back to this Court. 

Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s order of May 30, 2014, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court’s September 7, 2011, order revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is 

VACATED; and

2. Plaintiff is granted in forma pauperis status in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00412-SAB Document 36 Filed 06/04/14 Page 2 of 2