Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05864/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05864-0/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HILTON LAWRENCE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL SAYRE, M.D., et. al.,

Defendant(s).

 /

No. C-09-5864 TEH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a prisoner presently incarcerated at Calipatria

State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 against various officials of the California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation for alleged violations of his

constitutional rights. Doc. #1. Plaintiff also seeks leave to

proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Doc. #9. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), which

was enacted, and became effective, on April 26, 1996, provides that

a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior

occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought

Case 3:09-cv-05864-TEH Document 10 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 According to PACER’s U.S. Party/Case Index, as of April 12,

2010, Plaintiff has filed 159 civil actions in the United States

courts. 

2

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.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). “Section 1915(g)’s cap on prior dismissed claims

applies to claims dismissed both before and after the [PLRA’s]

effective date.” Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir.

1997).

To say that Plaintiff is a frequent litigant in federal

court and that his past filings fail to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted are gross understatements. For more than two

decades, Plaintiff has filed, and federal courts – not only

throughout the state of California but across the entire United

States – have dismissed summarily, Plaintiff’s numerous civil

actions.1

 Recently, in response to a petition for writ of habeas

corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District

Court for the Central District of California, the Chief Judge of

that court observed: 

[T]he Court is unable to determine from the

[original petition and first amended petition]: 

(1) what exactly Petitioner is attempting to

address in his Petition; (2) what relief he is

seeking; (3) what grounds for relief he is

alleging; (4) what the relevant procedural

history is; or (5) whether Petitioner is even

attempting to challenge a state court judgment.

. . . 

This is not the first instance where

Case 3:09-cv-05864-TEH Document 10 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 4
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

2

 “The Court also notes that in the original petition filed in

case number CV 05-8602, Petitioner attached a July 11, 2002[] order

from the Northern District of Texas in which a civil rights complaint

filed by him was summarily dismissed in the case entitled Hilton

Lawrence Brown v. Internal Revenue Service, et[.] al., 3-02-CV 1031-H.

In that order, the court noted that Petitioner “has a 14 year history

of filing frivolous lawsuits in federal courts throughout the United

States” and cited to at least ten cases that were dismissed under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e) or its predecessor statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). See

Brown v. Ayers, 221 F.3d 1347, 2000 WL 539602 (9th Cir. May 3, 2000)

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)); Brown v. Office of the Clerk, Los

Angeles Federal Court, 865 F.2d 263, 1988 WL 141539 (9th Cir. Dec. 21,

1988); Brown v. Ayers, 185 F.3d 873, 1999 WL 1334523 (10th Cir. Jun.

28, 1999); Brown v. Solicitor General of the United States, 1997 WL

411667 (D.C. Cir. Jul. 8, 1988); Brown v. Solicitor General , No.

1-96-CV-2432 (D. D.C. Oct. 25, 1996); Brown v. IRS, No[.] 4-96-CV-0508

(E.D. Mo. Mar. 13, 1996); Brown v. Clinton, 4-95-CV-1957 (E.D. Mo.

Dec. 21, 1995); Brown v. Clinton, No. 4-95-CV-0683 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 28,

1995); Brown v. Bureau of Prisons, 1994 WL 248231 (N.D. Cal. May 19,

1994); Brown v. People of the District of Columbia, No. l-94-CV-0532

(D . D.C. Mar. 15, 1994): Brown v. Marshall, 1993 WL 300061 (N.D. Cal.

Jul. 23, 1993).” 

3

Petitioner has been unsuccessful in his attempt

to litigate in federal court. On June 2, 2006,

this Court dismissed a § 2254 petition filed by

Petitioner for failure to comply with [Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure] Rule 8. (See CM/ECF

CV 05-8602-ABC (OP) Dkt. No. 21.) On October

25, 2000, this Court entered an order summarily

dismissing another § 2254 petition filed by

Petitioner. (See CM/ECF CV 00-10719-ABC (AN)

Dkt. No. 3.) In that order, the Court noted

that the petition was “substantially

incomprehensible” and that Petitioner “has in

the past been (and apparently in other courts

continues to be) a prolific filer.” Id.; see

also Brown v. Ayers, 221 F.3d 1347 (9th Cir.

2000) (table) (affirming district court’s order

finding petitioner subject to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g)).[2

]

See Brown v. Jacquez, No. CV 09-9168-ABC (OP), 2010 WL 475995 at

*1–2 (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 14, 2009). Regrettably for Plaintiff,

this Court, too, is unable to decipher Plaintiff’s filings in the

instant civil rights action. 

Case 3:09-cv-05864-TEH Document 10 Filed 04/13/10 Page 3 of 4
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 4

Because Plaintiff has had three or more prior dismissals

of civil actions on the grounds either that they were frivolous,

malicious or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, and because he is not under imminent danger of serious

physical injury, Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This action is

DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new Complaint

accompanied by the full filing fee. The Clerk is directed to

terminate any pending motions as moot and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 04/13/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.09\Brown-09-5864-dismissal.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-05864-TEH Document 10 Filed 04/13/10 Page 4 of 4