Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01576/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01576-0/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PETER JOHN ARENDAS, #36554, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DIANNE ASHLOCK, 

Defendant(s). 

Case No. 20-cv-01576-CRB (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

(ECF No. 4) 

On April 10, 2020, the court denied plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 

(IFP) in connection with this pro se prisoner action for damages for alleged preparation of invalid 

Washington state warrant that led to false arrest in California because plaintiff: (1) has had three or 

more prior prisoner actions dismissed by a federal court on the grounds that they are frivolous, 

malicious or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and (2) is not seeking relief 

from a danger of serious physical injury which was imminent at the time of filing. Apr. 10, 2020 

Order (ECF No. 3) at 1-2 (applying 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). But under the law of the circuit, the 

court afforded plaintiff 28 days to show cause why § 1915(g) does not bar IFP status for him or 

pay the requisite $ 400.00 filing fee. The court made clear that failure to show cause or pay the 

requisite $ 400.00 filing fee within the designated time would result in the dismissal of this action 

without prejudice to bringing it in a new paid complaint. Id. at 2. 

On April 27, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion arguing that the prior prisoner case dismissals of 

his cited by the court in its April 10, 2020 order should not count as strikes under § 1915(g) 

because they occurred back in 2010 when he was “unlearned” in the law. ECF No. 4 at 2. 

Plaintiff adds that the “3 strikes rule is for abusive reasons” and that the three cited prior prisoner 

actions of his were dismissed only for “failing to state a claim.” Id. Plaintiff’s argument is 

without merit. The unambiguous language of section 1915(g) makes clear that prior prisoner 

Case 3:20-cv-01576-CRB Document 6 Filed 06/11/20 Page 1 of 2
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 Californi

a

actions dismissed for “fail[ure] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” count as a 

strike. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). And 

plaintiff’s pro se status and/or limited legal skills when he suffered these dismissals in 2010 does 

not affect whether the dismissals count as a strike under § 1915(g). See Arendas v. Vega, No. 

2:19-cv-01332-TLN-EFB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219383, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019) 

(rejecting plaintiff’s same argument as here and explaining that pro se status does not affect 

analysis to determine whether prior dismissal constitutes a strike under § 1915(g)). 

Because plaintiff has three or more strikes and does not qualify for the imminent danger 

exception, § 1915(g) bars him from proceeding IFP in this action. This action therefore is 

DISMISSED without prejudice to bringing it in a new paid complaint. 

The clerk is instructed to close the file and terminate as moot the motion appearing on ECF 

as item number 4. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 11, 2020 

______________________________________ 

CHARLES R. BREYER 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:20-cv-01576-CRB Document 6 Filed 06/11/20 Page 2 of 2