1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRENCE BROWNLEE, Case No. 19-cv-06111-WHO (PR)

Plaintiff, 12 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 13

14 D. RUBAICABA, et al., Dkt. No. 5 Defendants. 15

16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff Terrence Brownlee is barred from bringing this action in forma pauperis 19 because he has filed at least three federal actions that were dismissed as frivolous, 20 malicious, or on grounds that they failed to state a claim for relief. He was ordered to 21 show cause why pauper status should not be barred, but he has not filed any response to 22 that order. Accordingly, this federal civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice 23 to Brownlee bringing his claims in a new paid complaint. 24 BACKGROUND 25 Brownlee, a state prisoner and frequent litigant in federal court, filed this federal 26 civil rights action under

along with a motion to proceed in forma 27 pauperis (IFP) under

. He was ordered to show cause why the action 1 not bring a civil action IFP “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while 2 incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United 3 States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a 4 claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of 5 serious physical injury.” (Dkt. No. 9.) The Order identified three prior federal court 6 actions (“strikes”) that appeared to count under section 1915(g) and allowed plaintiff an 7 opportunity to respond, as required by Andrews v. King,

(9th Cir. 2005). 8 The Order also informed Brownlee he could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee by the 9 deadline. 10 The strikes identified were: 11 (1) Brownlee v. Hoffman, No. 2:00-cv-02666-LKK-JFM (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2001) 12 (suit dismissed upon the recommendation of a magistrate judge for failure to state a claim 13 on which relief can be granted); 14 (2) Brownlee v. Smith, No. 2:03-cv-00746-DFL-DAD (E.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2003) 15 (suit dismissed upon the recommendation of a magistrate judge for failure to state a claim 16 on which relief can be granted); 17 (3) Brownlee v. Armoskus, 2:07-cv-02040-KJD-PAL (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2011) (suit 18 dismissed upon the recommendation of a magistrate judge for failure to state a claim on 19 which relief can be granted). 20 The Ninth Circuit regards these three suits as strikes. In an appeal from a judgment 21 issued by the undersigned, the Ninth Circuit ordered Brownlee to show cause why the 22 above suits should not bar him from proceeding IFP. The federal appellate court found 23 Brownlee’s response to the Order to Show Cause insufficient, revoked his IFP status, and 24 ordered him to pay the full filing fee. When Brownlee failed to pay the fee, the Ninth 25 Circuit dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. Brownlee v. Lam, No. 18-16923 (9th 26 Cir. Sept. 10, 2019). 27 1 DISCUSSION 2 Brownlee has not filed any response to the Order to Show Cause. He therefore has 3 || not shown any reason that the restrictions of section 1915(g) should not be imposed. He 4 || has failed to (i) pay the filing fee; (ii) show that any of the strikes do not qualify under 5 || section 1915(g); (ii) show that he qualifies for the imminent danger exception; or 6 || Gv) otherwise show cause why this action should not be dismissed. 7 Accordingly, Brownlee’s IFP application is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 5.) This civil 8 || rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Brownlee bringing his claims in a new 9 || paid complaint. 10 CONCLUSION 11 This action is DISMISSED without prejudice and the IFP motion is DENIED. The 2 Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close | thefile. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 || Dated: May 12, 2020 . \f C0 16 WV. WILLIAM H. ORRICK 2 17 United States District Judge

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28