Robert Bell v. Felicia Curtis
This text of 263 F. App'x 543 (Robert Bell v. Felicia Curtis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Missouri inmate Robert Bell appeals the district court’s order denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. See Roberts v. United, States Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844, 845, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950) (per curiam) (denial of IFP motion is appealable order). The court’s denial of IFP status was based on its finding that Bell had three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court also denied leave to proceed IFP on appeal, and Bell has renewed his IFP motion in this court.
We have reviewed the docket sheets and orders in the three cases the district court listed as strikes, see Owens v. Isaac, 487 F.3d 561, 563 (8th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (reviewing de novo district court’s interpretation and application of § 1915(g)), and have determined that Bell had only one strike when the instant lawsuit and appeal were filed, see Campbell v. Davenport Police Dep’t, 471 F.3d 952, 952-53 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (dismissals are counted as strikes only when appeals have been exhausted or waived; § 1915(g) does not apply unless inmate has three strikes at time he files lawsuit or appeal). Accordingly, we grant Bell’s motion to proceed IFP in this appeal, and reverse the district court’s order denying Bell IFP based on section 1915(g). We deny Bell’s motion to stay the appeal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
263 F. App'x 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-bell-v-felicia-curtis-ca8-2008.