Washington v. Cambra

Background

Roderick Washington, identified as a former state prisoner, proceeded without a lawyer in four cases. All four cases had been dismissed more than 20 years earlier. 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 limits a person’s ability to proceed without paying court fees after accumulating qualifying strikes, unless the person shows that he faces an imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Court’s analysis

The court considered the motions to the extent Washington sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule provides several grounds for relief from a judgment, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The rule requires such a motion to be filed 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 held that Washington’s motions were untimely because more than 20 years had passed since the cases were dismissed. It also stated that Washington presented no legal arguments explaining why the judgments should be vacated.

Disposition

The court denied Washington’s motions in each of the four cases. It stated that, to the extent the judgments prevented Washington from proceeding without paying court fees, he could file new cases and present specific arguments explaining why the individual cases did not qualify as strikes under § 1915(g). The Clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions.