1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PETER JOHN ARENDAS, #36554, Case No. 20-cv-01576-CRB (PR)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. (ECF No. 4)

10 DIANNE ASHLOCK,

11 Defendant(s).

12 On April 10, 2020, the court denied plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 13 (IFP) in connection with this pro se prisoner action for damages for alleged preparation of invalid 14 Washington state warrant that led to false arrest in California because plaintiff: (1) has had three or 15 more prior prisoner actions dismissed by a federal court on the grounds that they are frivolous, 16 malicious or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and (2) is not seeking relief 17 from a danger of serious physical injury which was imminent at the time of filing. Apr. 10, 2020 18 Order (ECF No. 3) at 1-2 (applying

(g)). But under the law of the circuit, the 19 court afforded plaintiff 28 days to show cause why § 1915(g) does not bar IFP status for him or 20 pay the requisite $ 400.00 filing fee. The court made clear that failure to show cause or pay the 21 requisite $ 400.00 filing fee within the designated time would result in the dismissal of this action 22 without prejudice to bringing it in a new paid complaint. Id. at 2. 23 On April 27, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion arguing that the prior prisoner case dismissals of 24 his cited by the court in its April 10, 2020 order should not count as strikes under § 1915(g) 25 because they occurred back in 2010 when he was “unlearned” in the law. ECF No. 4 at 2. 26 Plaintiff adds that the “3 strikes rule is for abusive reasons” and that the three cited prior prisoner 27 actions of his were dismissed only for “failing to state a claim.” Id. Plaintiff’s argument is 1 actions dismissed for “fail[ure] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” count as a 2 || strike.

(g); see Andrews v. King,

(9th Cir. 2005). And 3 || plaintiffs pro se status and/or limited legal skills when he suffered these dismissals in 2010 does 4 not affect whether the dismissals count as a strike under § 1915(g). See Arendas v. Vega, No. 5 || 2:19-cv-01332-TLN-EFB,

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019) 6 || (rejecting plaintiff's same argument as here and explaining that pro se status does not affect 7 analysis to determine whether prior dismissal constitutes a strike under § 1915(g)). 8 Because plaintiff has three or more strikes and does not qualify for the imminent danger 9 exception, § 1915(g) bars him from proceeding IFP in this action. This action therefore is 19 || DISMISSED without prejudice to bringing it in a new paid complaint. 11 The clerk is instructed to close the file and terminate as moot the motion appearing on ECF

= 12 |} as item number 4.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 44 || Dated: June 11, 2020

15 _ ee CHARLES R. BREYER 16 United States District Judge & = 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28