Cambra

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 RODERICK WASHINGTON, Case No. 95-cv-03356-TEH1 (WHO) Plaintiff, 95-cv-03641-TEH 8 95-cv-03763-TEH v. 98-cv-01831-TEH

STEVEN CAMBRA, et. al.,

ORDER

Defendants.

13 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, proceeded pro se in the above cases. All of these 14 actions were dismissed more than twenty-years ago. Plaintiff has now filed the same 15 motion in all of the cases seeking to vacate the judgments. He argues that the cases should 16 be vacated because they qualify as strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which prevents 17 him from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he can demonstrate that he is under 18 imminent danger of serious physical injury. To the extent plaintiff seeks relief from these 19 judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), any such motion is denied. 20 Rule 60(b) lists six grounds for relief from a judgment: (1) mistake, inadvertence, 21 surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence…