Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00682/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00682-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRENCE BROWNLEE,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

STANLEY A. BOONE; ARLEN 

HARRELL; AND FRESNO COUNTY,

 Defendants.

1:16-cv-682-LJO-EPG 

 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AND DISMISSING ACTION, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING 

WITH SUBMISSION OF $400.00 

FILING FEE IN FULL

(ECF No. 2,3 and 6.)

ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE 

CASE

I. BACKGROUND

Terrance Brownlee ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this 

action on May 13, 2016, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and a 

motion to appoint counsel. (ECF Nos. 1, 2, and 3). He subsequently filed a First Amended 

Complaint and a Motion to Amend the Complaint on June 13, 2016. (ECF Nos. 5 and 6).

II. THREE-STRIKES PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

28 U.S.C. ' 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. Section 1915(g) provides 

that A[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action ... 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 

Case 1:16-cv-00682-LJO-EPG Document 7 Filed 06/21/16 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

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.@ 

III. ANALYSIS

A review of the actions filed by Plaintiff reveals that he is subject to 28 U.S.C. '

1915(g) and is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless Plaintiff was, at the time 

the Complaint was filed, under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court has 

found evidence on the court record of 1915(g) “strikes” against Plaintiff, which were all 

entered before this action was filed on May 13, 2015.

1

 The first is case 2:00-cv-2666-LKKJFM (Brownlee v. Hoffman, et al.) (EDCA), which was dismissed on August 7, 2001, for

failure to state a claim. The second is case 2:03-cv-00746-DFL-DAD P (Brownlee v. Smith et 

al.) (EDCA), which was dismissed on June 17, 2003, for failure to state a claim. The third is 

case 2:07-cv-2040-KJD-PAL (Brownlee v. Armoskus et al.) (EDCA), which was dismissed on 

January 26, 2011, for failure to state a claim. The fourth is case 2:09-cv-2040-JFM (Brownlee

v. Swigle et al.) (EDCA), which was dismissed and affirmed on appeal on the basis that 

Plaintiff was a three striker. (ECF 19 and 20).

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff=s Complaint, as well as the proposed First Amended 

Complaint (Docs. 1 and 5), and finds that Plaintiff does not meet the imminent danger 

exception. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007).2Therefore, 

Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis in this action, and must submit the appropriate 

filing fee in order to proceed with this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff=s application to proceed in 

 

1 The court has examined the orders dismissing the cases and finds that they constitute “strikes” within 

the meaning of § 1915(g). 

2 Although Plaintiff alleges he is in imminent danger, a close review of the Complaint and Amended 

Complaint are void of any facts establishing that Plaintiff is in fact under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury at the time he filed the pleadings. (ECF 1 and 5). Both Complaints challenge a dismissal of his habeas 

petition in which Plaintiff is contesting a conviction for second degree murder and robbery. See, Brownlee v. 

Spearman, 1:16-cv-244- SAB-HC (E.D. Cal. April 4, 2016) (Doc. 10). The court expresses no opinion on the 

merits of Plaintiff’s claims.

Case 1:16-cv-00682-LJO-EPG Document 7 Filed 06/21/16 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

forma pauperis shall be denied, and this action shall be dismissed, without prejudice to refiling 

with the submission of the $400.00 filing fee in full.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g), Plaintiff=s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis in this action is DENIED;

2. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice to refiling with the submission of 

the $400.00 filing fee in full; and

3. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00682-LJO-EPG Document 7 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 3