Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06111/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06111-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRENCE BROWNLEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. RUBAICABA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-06111-WHO (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Dkt. No. 5

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Terrence Brownlee is barred from bringing this action in forma pauperis

because he has filed at least three federal actions that were dismissed as frivolous, 

malicious, or on grounds that they failed to state a claim for relief. He was ordered to 

show cause why pauper status should not be barred, but he has not filed any response to 

that order. Accordingly, this federal civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice 

to Brownlee bringing his claims in a new paid complaint. 

BACKGROUND

Brownlee, a state prisoner and frequent litigant in federal court, filed this federal 

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 along with a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. He was ordered to show cause why the action 

should not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that a prisoner may 

Case 3:19-cv-06111-WHO Document 10 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

not bring a civil action IFP “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while 

incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United 

States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury.” (Dkt. No. 9.) The Order identified three prior federal court 

actions (“strikes”) that appeared to count under section 1915(g) and allowed plaintiff an 

opportunity to respond, as required by Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005). 

The Order also informed Brownlee he could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee by the 

deadline. 

The strikes identified were: 

(1) Brownlee v. Hoffman, No. 2:00-cv-02666-LKK-JFM (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2001) 

(suit dismissed upon the recommendation of a magistrate judge for failure to state a claim 

on which relief can be granted);

(2) Brownlee v. Smith, No. 2:03-cv-00746-DFL-DAD (E.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2003) 

(suit dismissed upon the recommendation of a magistrate judge for failure to state a claim 

on which relief can be granted);

(3) Brownlee v. Armoskus, 2:07-cv-02040-KJD-PAL (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2011) (suit 

dismissed upon the recommendation of a magistrate judge for failure to state a claim on 

which relief can be granted).

The Ninth Circuit regards these three suits as strikes. In an appeal from a judgment 

issued by the undersigned, the Ninth Circuit ordered Brownlee to show cause why the 

above suits should not bar him from proceeding IFP. The federal appellate court found

Brownlee’s response to the Order to Show Cause insufficient, revoked his IFP status, and 

ordered him to pay the full filing fee. When Brownlee failed to pay the fee, the Ninth 

Circuit dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. Brownlee v. Lam, No. 18-16923 (9th 

Cir. Sept. 10, 2019).

Case 3:19-cv-06111-WHO Document 10 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

Brownlee has not filed any response to the Order to Show Cause. He therefore has 

not shown any reason that the restrictions of section 1915(g) should not be imposed. He 

has failed to (i) pay the filing fee; (ii) show that any of the strikes do not qualify under 

section 1915(g); (iii) show that he qualifies for the imminent danger exception; or 

(iv) otherwise show cause why this action should not be dismissed.

Accordingly, Brownlee’s IFP application is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 5.) This civil 

rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Brownlee bringing his claims in a new 

paid complaint. 

CONCLUSION

This action is DISMISSED without prejudice and the IFP motion is DENIED. The 

Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close 

the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 12, 2020

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-06111-WHO Document 10 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 3