Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03012/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03012-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

BRANDON LAWALTER JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-03012-RS (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff is barred from bringing this federal civil rights action in forma pauperis

(IFP) because he has filed three or more federal actions that were dismissed as frivolous, 

malicious, or on grounds that they failed to state a claim for relief. Accordingly, plaintiff’s 

IFP status is REVOKED and this federal civil rights suit is DISMISSED without prejudice 

to plaintiff bringing his claims in a new paid complaint.

Plaintiff was ordered to show cause on or before September 23, 2019 why the 

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

may 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. 14.) The order identified four prior federal court 

Case 3:19-cv-03012-RS Document 18 Filed 10/01/19 Page 1 of 3
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

CASE NO. 19-cv-03012-RS

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

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 plaintiff he could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee by the 

deadline. 

The strikes identified were: 

(1) Jones v. Alameda District Attorney’s Office, No. 15-cv-06145-PSG (N.D. Cal. 

Mar. 21, 2016) (suit dismissed for failure to state a claim)1; 

(2) Jones v. Oakland Police Department, No. 16-cv-00247-EDL (N.D. Cal. Jul. 8, 

2016) (suit dismissed after plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint after the first 

complaint had been dismissed for failure to state a claim)2;

(3) Jones v. State of California, et al., No. 16-cv-00248-PSG (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 

2016) (suit dismissed after plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint after the first 

complaint had been dismissed for failure to state a claim)3;

 

1 A dismissal based on a defendant’s immunity from suit counts as a strike, when the 

affirmative defense is apparent on the face of the complaint. “The district court properly 

counted Reberger v. Suter, No. 3:11–cv–00073 as a strike, because Suter was dismissed on 

the grounds that Reberger had failed to state a claim. “A complaint is subject to dismissal 

for failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show the plaintiff is not entitled 

to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215, 127 S. Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007). 

Such a dismissal is appropriate when an affirmative defense barring relief appears on the 

face of the complaint. Id. In Suter, it was clear from the face of the complaint that the 

affirmative defense of qualified immunity barred any relief for Reberger, and the court 

dismissed the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).” Reberger v. Baker, 657 Fed. App’x 

681, 684 (9th Cir. 2016). 

2 These magistrate judge dismissals count as strikes under § 1915(g) even after Williams v. 

King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017), which determined that a magistrate judge “lacks the 

authority to dismiss a case unless all parties have consented to proceed before the 

magistrate judge.” Hoffman v. Pulido, No. 18-15661, slip op. 1, 8-10 (9th Cir. July 8, 

2019) (rejecting plaintiff’s contention that post-Williams a magistrate judge’s dismissal of 

a case without obtaining the defendants’ consent cannot count as a strike under § 1915(g)). 

3 When the district court dismisses a complaint for failure to state a claim and grants leave 

to amend, and the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint, the dismissal counts as 

a strike under § 1915(g). Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017).

Case 3:19-cv-03012-RS Document 18 Filed 10/01/19 Page 2 of 3
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

CASE NO. 19-cv-03012-RS

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

(4) Jones v. Santa Rita Jail, No. 16-cv-00249-EDL (N.D. Cal. Jul. 8, 2016) (suit

dismissed after plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint after the first complaint had 

been dismissed for failure to state a claim).

Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause. (Dkt. No. 17.) He contends he 

could not file amended complaints in the prior cases because he had a bipolar crisis or was 

otherwise not mentally or physically capable of filing an adequate pleading. He alleges 

that he is therefore entitled to the imminent danger exception.

This is not a proper invocation of the imminent danger exception. To qualify, 

plaintiff must show that he faced an imminent danger at the time he filed the instant suit, 

not during the litigation of the prior suits. Plaintiff therefore has not shown why the prior 

suits should not count as strikes. He does not show, for instance, that his pleadings in the 

prior suits did state claims, or provide any adequate reason why his suits should not have 

been dismissed. 

Plaintiff 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, plaintiff’s IFP status is REVOKED. This civil rights action is 

DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff bringing his claims in a new paid complaint. 

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

close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September___, 2019

_________________________

 RICHARD SEEBORG

 United States District Judge

30

Case 3:19-cv-03012-RS Document 18 Filed 10/01/19 Page 3 of 3