Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06111/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06111-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

TERRENCE BROWNLEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. RUBAICABA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-06111-WHO (PR) 

ORDER REOPENING ACTION; 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

PAUPER STATUS IS NOT BARRED

Plaintiff Terrence Brownlee, a state prisoner and frequent litigant in federal court, 

has filed this federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 along with a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 Brownlee is ordered to show 

cause on or before March 16, 2020 why 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) does not bar pauper 

status in this action. 

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 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.” 

1

In his suit, plaintiff alleges he experienced racial discrimination and harassment from his 

supervisor at the prison’s food department. 

Case 3:19-cv-06111-WHO Document 9 Filed 02/18/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Under the law of this circuit, plaintiff must be afforded an opportunity to persuade 

the Court that section 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him. See Andrews v. King, 

398 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005). Andrews requires that the prisoner be given notice of 

the potential applicability of section 1915(g), by either the district court or the defendants, 

but also requires the prisoner to bear the ultimate burden of persuasion that section 1915(g) 

does not bar pauper status for him. Id. Andrews implicitly allows the Court to raise sua 

sponte the section 1915(g) problem but requires the Court to notify the prisoner of the 

earlier dismissals it considers to support a section 1915(g) dismissal and allow the prisoner 

an opportunity to be heard on the matter before dismissing the action. Id. A dismissal 

under section 1915(g) means that a prisoner cannot proceed with his action as a pauper 

under section 1915(g), but he still may pursue his claims if he pays the full filing fee at the 

outset of the action. 

Here, Brownlee has had at least three prior prisoner actions or appeals dismissed by 

a federal court on the grounds that they are frivolous, malicious, or that they failed to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted: 

(1) Brownlee v. Hoffman, No. 2:00-cv-02666-LKK-JFM (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2001) 

(suit dismissed upon the recommendation of a magistrate judge for failure to state a claim 

on which relief can be granted); 

(2) Brownlee v. Smith, No. 2:03-cv-00746-DFL-DAD (E.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2003) 

(suit dismissed upon the recommendation of a magistrate judge for failure to state a claim 

on which relief can be granted); 

(3) Brownlee v. Armoskus, 2:07-cv-02040-KJD-PAL (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2011) (suit 

dismissed upon the recommendation of a magistrate judge for failure to state a claim on 

which relief can be granted). 

The Ninth Circuit regards these three suits as strikes. In an appeal from a judgment 

issued by the undersigned, the Ninth Circuit ordered Brownlee to show cause why the 

above suits should not bar him from proceeding IFP. The federal appellate court found 

Case 3:19-cv-06111-WHO Document 9 Filed 02/18/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Brownlee’s response to the Order to Show Cause insufficient, revoked his IFP status, and 

ordered him to pay the full filing fee. When Brownlee failed to pay the fee, the Ninth 

Circuit dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. Brownlee v. Lam, No. 18-16923 (9th 

Cir. Sept. 10, 2019). 

In light of these dismissals, and because Brownlee does not appear to be under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury, the Court now orders him to show cause why 

IFP status should not be denied and the present suit should not be dismissed pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Brownlee’s response to this order to show cause is due no later than March 16, 

2020. The response must clearly be labeled “RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE.” In the alternative to showing cause why this action should not be dismissed, 

Brownlee may avoid dismissal by paying the full filing fee of $400.00 by March 16, 2020. 

Failure to file a response by March 16, 2020, or failure to pay the full filing fee by 

that date, will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice to plaintiff bringing 

his claims in a new paid complaint. 

This suit was dismissed because Brownlee’s IFP application was deficient. He has

since cured the deficiencies. Accordingly, this action is REOPENED. The Clerk is 

directed to modify the docket to reflect this. The judgment and the order of dismissal are 

VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2020

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-06111-WHO Document 9 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 3