Washington v. Cambra
- William Orrick
- 3:95-cv-03356-TEH
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Washington v. Cambra, Judge Orrick denied Roderick Washington’s motions to vacate more-than-twenty-year-old judgments as untimely under Rule 60(b).
Roderick Washington, a former state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, whose motions to vacate the judgments were denied; the defendants in the four cases were also affected because the judgments remained in place.
What happened
Washington v. Cambra involved motions by Roderick Washington, a former state prisoner representing himself, in four cases dismissed more than twenty years earlier. He asked the court to vacate the judgments because they counted as strikes that could restrict his ability to proceed without paying filing fees unless he showed imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court explained that Rule 60(b) allows relief from a judgment for specific reasons, but requires motions to be filed within a reasonable time. The court found Washington’s motions untimely and noted that he presented no legal arguments supporting vacatur. It said he could file new cases and explain why particular cases should not count as strikes.
Judge William H. Orrick denied the motions in each case and directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Cambra · No. 3:95-cv-03356-TEH
- William Orrick
- June 27, 2022
Background
Roderick Washington, identified as a former state prisoner, proceeded without a lawyer in four cases. The cases had all been dismissed more than twenty years before he filed the motions at issue. Washington filed the same motion in each case seeking to vacate the judgments.
Washington argued that the judgments should be vacated because they qualified as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally prevents a person with three qualifying strikes from proceeding without paying filing fees unless the person shows that he or she is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Court’s analysis
The court treated Washington’s request, to the extent he relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), as a request for relief from judgment. Rule 60(b) identifies six possible grounds, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The rule also requires a motion to be made within a reasonable time; motions based on some of the listed grounds must be filed no later than one year after entry of judgment.
The court found the motions untimely because more than twenty years had passed since the cases were dismissed. It also stated that Washington presented no legal arguments explaining why the judgments should be vacated.
Ruling
Judge William H. Orrick denied Washington’s motions in each of the four cases. The court stated that, to the extent the judgments prevented Washington from proceeding without paying filing fees, he could file new cases and present specific arguments explaining why those individual cases did not qualify as strikes under § 1915(g). The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.