Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 3, 2021

Brownlee v. Vernon

Judge
William Orrick
Docket
3:20-cv-04664
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil RightsSection 1983Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Brownlee v. Vernon, Judge Orrick denied IFP and counsel, and dismissed the civil-rights action without prejudice because Brownlee had three strikes.

Who this affects

Terrance Brownlee’s ability to pursue this § 1983 action without paying the filing fee; the case was dismissed without prejudice, while the defendants received judgment in their favor in this action.

What happened

In Brownlee v. Vernon, Terrance Brownlee, a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under a federal law allowing claims against government officials and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court identified three earlier cases that counted as strikes under the prisoner-filing rule.

The court gave Brownlee an opportunity to explain why the rule should not apply or to pay the filing fee. Brownlee argued only generally that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury, but the court found that explanation insufficient.

Judge Orrick denied Brownlee’s request to proceed without paying the fee and denied his request for appointed counsel. The court dismissed the action without prejudice, allowing Brownlee to bring the claims in a new complaint if he paid the filing fee.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Brownlee v. Vernon · No. 3:20-cv-04664
Judge
William Orrick
Date
Feb. 3, 2021

Background

Terrance Brownlee, identified as a state prisoner and frequent federal litigant, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. He also moved for appointment of counsel.

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee after three or more earlier federal actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. The court identified three earlier Brownlee actions as qualifying strikes. The opinion also noted that the Ninth Circuit had previously treated those cases as strikes, revoked Brownlee’s unpaid-fee status in an appeal, and ordered him to pay the full fee. When he did not pay, the Ninth Circuit dismissed that appeal for failure to prosecute.

Imminent-danger exception

Section 1915(g) contains an exception when a prisoner faces imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court explained that the relevant danger must exist when the complaint is filed and must involve an ongoing danger. Brownlee asserted in conclusory terms that this exception applied, but the court found that he had not adequately shown imminent danger.

Brownlee also did not pay the filing fee, show that any of the three strikes should not count, or otherwise show why the action should not be dismissed.

Ruling

The court denied Brownlee’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee and denied his motion for appointment of counsel. It dismissed the civil-rights action without prejudice to Brownlee bringing his claims in a new paid complaint. The court also stated that all pending motions were denied, directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motions, enter judgment in favor of the defendants, and close the file. Judge William Orrick entered the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.