Canada v. All Members of Damascus Way Staff

Background

Shawn Canada filed the action against All Members of Damascus Way Staff, Dan Sepeda, and Dan Stehr. The court received his complaint on August 23, 2021. On October 21, 2021, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for which it could grant relief. The court entered judgment the next day.

After judgment, Canada filed a document titled “Claim of Action.” The court found that the document was unclear but appeared to assert a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a federal law commonly called RICO. Canada then filed a document titled “Motion for Permission to File Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983” and “Objection to Order.” The court construed that document as asking for permission to file a RICO claim in this action, although it also appeared to refer to a new claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Canada also filed a notice of appeal concerning the October 2021 dismissal order and this application to appeal without paying the filing fee.

Request to Appeal Without Paying the Filing Fee

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding on appeal without paying the filing fee after at least three earlier cases or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. The court stated that Canada had at least three such dismissals, known as “strikes.” It also found that the filings did not show that Canada was facing imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court therefore denied the Motion and Affidavit for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis.

Motion/Objection

The court considered whether it still had authority to decide the Motion/Objection after Canada filed his notice of appeal. It explained that a notice of appeal generally gives the court of appeals jurisdiction over the issues involved in the appeal and removes the district court’s control over those issues. The court concluded that Canada plainly intended to challenge the October 2021 order and that permission to file a new § 1983 claim was among the issues he planned to raise on appeal.

The court also concluded that the Claim of Action and Motion/Objection did not qualify as a motion asking the court to alter or amend the judgment, so the notice of appeal was not ineffective on that basis. Because the requested action concerned an issue within the appeal, the district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to act. Judge Susan Richard Nelson therefore denied the Motion/Objection for lack of jurisdiction. The order separately denied the filing-fee application and denied the Motion/Objection.