Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05770/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05770-2/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM ODESSA BROWN, II,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-5770 CW (PR)

ORDER (1) VACATING ORDER

DISMISSING PLAINTIFF BROWN'S

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

(2) TO SHOW CAUSE; AND

(3) DENYING REQUEST FOR CLASS

CERTIFICATION

Plaintiff William Odessa Brown, II, is a prisoner of the State

of California who is incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison in

Calipatria. Plaintiff Brown filed this pro se civil rights case

along with two other Plaintiffs. At the time they filed the

complaint, Plaintiffs were confined at the Correctional Training

Facility (CTF) in Soledad. 

I. Vacating Order Dismissing Plaintiff Brown's Complaint

In an Order date January 11, 2008, the Court dismissed

Plaintiffs' complaints for failure to provide proper in forma

pauperis (IFP) applications. However, the record shows that

Plaintiff Brown filed a complete IFP application on January 9,

2008. In view of this, it is clear that Plaintiff Brown's

complaint was dismissed erroneously. Therefore, the Court's

January 11, 2008 Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice is VACATED as

to Plaintiff Brown's complaint. 

Case 4:07-cv-05770-CW Document 14 Filed 01/31/08 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

II. Request for Class Certification

Plaintiff Brown seeks to proceed on behalf of the class of all

prisoners at CTF. The prerequisites to maintenance of a class

action are that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all

members is impracticable, (2) there are common questions of law and

fact, (3) the representative party's claims or defenses are typical

of the class claims or defenses, and (4) the representative party

will fairly and adequately protect the class interests. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 23(a). As a matter of law, pro se prisoner plaintiffs

are not able to fairly represent and adequately protect the

interests of a class. See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405,

1407 (4th Cir. 1975); Griffin v. Smith, 493 F. Supp. 129, 131

(W.D.N.Y. 1980). "[A] litigant appearing in propria persona has no

authority to represent anyone other than himself." Russell v.

United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962). Accordingly,

Plaintiff Brown may not go forward with his complaint as a class

action, and the request for class certification is DENIED. 

III. Order to Show Cause

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) was enacted,

and became effective, on April 26, 1996. It provides that a

prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis under 28

U.S.C. § 1915 "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." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Case 4:07-cv-05770-CW Document 14 Filed 01/31/08 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

For purposes of a dismissal that may be counted under

§ 1915(g), the phrase "fails to state a claim on which relief may

be granted" parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6) and carries the same interpretation, the word

"frivolous" refers to a case that is "of little weight or

importance: having no basis in law or fact," and the word

"malicious" refers to a case "filed with the 'intention or desire

to harm another.'" Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.

2005) (citation omitted). Only cases within one of these three

categories can be counted as strikes for § 1915(g) purposes. See

id. Dismissal of an action under § 1915(g) should only occur when,

"after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an [earlier]

action, and other relevant information, the district court

determines that the action was dismissed because it was frivolous,

malicious or failed to state a claim." Id. 

Andrews requires that the prisoner be given notice of the

potential applicability of § 1915(g), by either the district court

or the defendants, but also requires the prisoner to bear the

ultimate burden of persuasion that § 1915(g) does not bar pauper

status for him. Id. Andrews implicitly allows the Court to raise

the § 1915(g) problem sua sponte, but requires the Court to notify

the prisoner of the earlier dismissals it considers to support a

§ 1915(g) dismissal and allow the prisoner an opportunity to be

heard on the matter before dismissing the action. See id. at 1120. 

A dismissal under § 1915(g) means that a prisoner cannot proceed

with his action as a pauper under § 1915(g), but he still may

Case 4:07-cv-05770-CW Document 14 Filed 01/31/08 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

pursue his claims if he pays the full filing fee at the outset of

the action.

A review of the dismissal orders in Plaintiff Brown's prior

prisoner actions in this Court reveals that he has had at least

three such cases dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous,

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

granted. Plaintiff Brown is now given notice that the Court

believes the following dismissals may be counted as dismissals for

purposes of § 1915(g): (1) Brown v. Mule Creek State Prison, et

al., No. 03-cv-02365-GEB-GGH (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2005) (civil

rights complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted); (2) Brown v. California Department of

Corrections, et al., No. C 05-2067 CW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25,

2006) (civil rights action dismissed for failure to state a claim);

(3) Brown v. Salinas Valley State Prison, No. C 05-2776 CW (PR)

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2006) (civil rights action dismissed as

malicious). Plaintiff Brown therefore may proceed in forma

pauperis only if he is seeking relief from a danger of serious

physical injury which is "imminent" at the time of filing. See

Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir. 2001) (en

banc); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 1999);

Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998); Banos v.

O'Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1998). He is not. 

In light of these dismissals, and because Plaintiff Brown does

not appear to be under imminent danger of serious physical injury,

he is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why his IFP application should not be

Case 4:07-cv-05770-CW Document 14 Filed 01/31/08 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.07\Brown-Charles-Hardiman5770.vacBrownDISIFP.wpd 5

denied and this action should not be dismissed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

CONCLUSION

1. The Court's January 11, 2008 Order of Dismissal Without

Prejudice is VACATED as to Plaintiff Brown's complaint. The Clerk

of the Court shall REOPEN the action filed by Plaintiff Brown.

2. Plaintiff Brown's request for class certification is

DENIED. 

3. Plaintiff Brown is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no

later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order why in

forma pauperis should not be denied and this action should not be

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If Plaintiff Brown is

so inclined, he may avoid dismissal by paying the $350.00 filing

fee. In any event, the Court will continue to review under

§ 1915(g) all future actions filed by Plaintiff Brown while he is

incarcerated in which he seeks in forma pauperis status. 

FAILURE TO FILE A TIMELY RESPONSE OR FAILURE TO PAY THE FULL

FILING FEE WILL RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF BROWN'S ACTION

WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF BROWN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 1/31/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-05770-CW Document 14 Filed 01/31/08 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.07\Brown-Charles-Hardiman5770.vacBrownDISIFP.wpd 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM BROWN et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BEN CURRY et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-05770 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 31, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Cesari Hardiman H02971

Correctional Training Facility

Hwy 101 P.O. Box 689

Soledad, CA 93960-0689

Curtis M. John-Charles T-56703

CTF-Soledad

P.O. Box 689

Highway 101 North

Soledad, CA 93960-0689

Curtis M. John-Charles T-56703

North Block; 5-N-89-U

San Quentin, CA 94964

William Odessa Brown K-93463

CAL

P.O. Box 5002

Calipatria, CA 92233-5002

Dated: January 31, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-05770-CW Document 14 Filed 01/31/08 Page 6 of 6