Opinion
Case No. CV 11-5415-CAS (DTB)
07-23-2013
RONNIE O. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. R. HOOPS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT BE
DECLARED A VEXATIOUS
LITIGANT
The Court issues this Order in response to plaintiff's repeated, frivolous, and unsubstantiated motions requesting similar relief, and based on defendants' Opposition to plaintiff's 'Motion to Compell [sic] the Defendants to Answer Interogatories [sic], Request for Admissions and to Produce Documents and for an Award of Sanctions in the Amount of $2000" ("Motion to Compel") [Dkt. # 153] and defendants' "Motion for Terminating Sanctions and/or in the Alternative Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Answer Interrogatories and to Produce Documents and for Sanctions in the Amount of $1750" ("Motion for Terminating Sanctions") [Dkt. # 191]. Over the past 18 years, plaintiff has filed in excess of 60 actions in the Central District of California, and has filed approximately 40 motions in this action alone, largely requesting the same or similar relief. Additionally, plaintiff made material misrepresentations to the Court in his Motion to Compel filed on February 28, 2013. As such, the Court hereby orders plaintiff to show cause as to why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to the Local Rules.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Since 1994, plaintiff has filed 70 actions in this District, at least 29 of which were closed after plaintiff s request for leave to file the action without prepayment of the full filing fee was denied, at least four of which were closed after his request for in forma pauperis status was revoked, and at least four of which were dismissed for failure to prosecute. On July 8, 2011, plaintiff initiated the instant action in this Court with his Complaint alleging, inter alia, violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Plaintiff has apparently used different names in these actions, including "Ronnie Brown," "Ronnie O. Brown," "Ronnie O'Neal Brown," Rodney Brown," "Ronson Brown," and various iterations thereof. However, despite the different names, certain identifying criteria is identical in these cases, including
(1) plaintiff's booking number of K-89434 while incarcerated at the California Institution for Men in Chino, California (compare, e.g., the action styled Ronnie O. Brown v. Dept. Adult Parole Operations, et al.; Case No. 5:08-cv-00011-UA-JWJ with the action styled Ronnie Brown v. California Department of Corrections, et al.; Case No. 2:08-cv-04379-UA-JWJ) (see Exhibit C at 1, 6);
(2) plaintiff's booking number of 1102340724 while incarcerated at the West Valley Detention Center ("WVDC") (compare, e.g., the instant action filed by Ronnie O. Brown with the action styled Ronnie Brown v. Rod Hoops; Case No. 5:11-cv-01097-CAS-DTB and the action styled Ronson Brown aka Ronnie Brown v. Rod Hoops; Case No. 5:11-cv-01204-CAS-DTB) (see Exhibit Cat 17, 18, 19); and
(3) plaintiff's booking number of 3297631 while in custody at the Los Angeles Men's County Jail (compare, e.g., the action styled Rodney Brown v. LA County Counsel, et al.; Case No. 2:13-cv-00154-PA-VBK with the instant action which was filed while incarcerated at WVDC using booking number 1102340724 wherein plaintiff submitted a change of address using booking number 3297631) (see Exhibit C at .28, 29). The Court hereby takes judicial notice of the filings in these actions, as well as plaintiff's identifying information in official records, such as his booking lumber. The Court may take judicial notice of the existence of court filings and mother court's orders. See Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 866 (9th Cir. 2002) (taking judicial notice of opinion and briefs filed in another proceeding); United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc.. 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (courts "may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue" (citation omitted)).
--------
Since the filing of the original Complaint in this action, plaintiff has filed approximately 40 motions, many of which request multiple forms of relief and are groundless. Additionally, most of the motions seek the same or similar relief previously sought and denied, such as at least live requests for the appointment of counsel and eight vague requests for access to various resources, each of which were largely unsupported by fact or law. Other motions, such as his "Motion for Court to Allow a U.S. Attorney, Attorney General, Federal Brueau [sic] of Investigation or the Office of San Bernardino County District of Attorney Investigate and Document Citizens Complaint of Great Bodily Injury/Meyhem [sic] Suffered by the Plaintiff as Result of Outrageos [sic] Police Condut [sic]," are unclear and virtually unintelligible.
On February 28, 2013, plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel, wherein plaintiff sought responses to the following discovery he had propounded on defendants:
· Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents ("RFP") to defendant Lastra (Set One) served on December 24, 2012;
· Plaintiff's Interrogatory Requests ("Interrogatories") to defendant McChristian (Set One) served on December 24, 2012;
· Plaintiff's Interrogatories to defendant Williams (Set One) served on December 24, 2012;
· Plaintiff's Interrogatories to defendant Lastra (Set One) served on December 24, 2012; and
· Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions ("RFA") to defendant Lastra (Set One) served on December 24, 2012.
Plaintiff contended that defendants did not respond to any of the above discovery requests and ignored plaintiff's meet and confer efforts. Defendants disputed plaintiff's contentions, arguing that they responded to each of plaintiff's, discovery requests, and that plaintiff failed to meet and confer. Most troubling, however, was that defendants presented evidence that plaintiff had affirmatively misrepresented the dates upon which he served the discovery. Based on a review of the documents defendants attached to their Opposition, as well as defendants' supporting declaration, it appeared to the Court that plaintiff had, indeed, materially misrepresented the dates upon which he had propounded the discovery at issue, and in fact, it appears he affirmatively removed the original dates and replaced them with earlier dates.
Further, on February 12, 2013, defendants filed a "Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Answer Interrogatories and to Produce Documents and for an Award of Sanctions in the Amount of $600" ("Def. Motion to Compel") [Dkt. # 137] arguing that plaintiff had failed to respond to any of defendants' interrogatory or document requests. On February 22, 2013, the Court ordered defendants to re-serve the discovery requests, due to changes in plaintiff's address, in order to allow plaintiff an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, defendants re-served, the discovery requests, and engaged in further meet and confer efforts regarding responses. On May 20, 2013, defendants filed the Motion for Terminating Sanctions, indicating that, to date, plaintiff still has not responded to any of defendants' written discovery.
DISCUSSION
Under the All Writs Act, federal courts have the power to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law," 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), The Ninth Circuit has observed there is strong precedent for courts using that power to "regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate circumstances." De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted).
Additionally, Central District of California, Local Rule 83-8.1 provides: It is the policy of the Court to discourage vexatious litigation and to provide persons who are subjected to vexatious litigation with security against the costs of defending against such litigation and appropriate orders to control such litigation. It is the intent of this rule to augment the inherent power of the Court to control vexatious litigation and nothing in this rule shall be construed to limit the Court's inherent power in that regard.
Where a litigant has "abused the Court's process and is likely to continue such abuse," the Court may (1) "order a party to give security . . . to secure the payment of any costs, sanctions or other amounts which may be awarded against a vexatious litigant"; or (2) "make such other orders as are appropriate to control the conduct of the vexatious litigation." Local Rules, 83-8.2, 83-8.3. "Such orders may include, without limitation, a directive to the Clerk not to accept further filings from the litigant without payment of normal filing fees and/or without written authorization from a judge of the Court or a Magistrate Judge, issued upon such showing: of the evidence supporting the claim as the judge may require." Local Rule 83-8.2.
Although pre-filing restrictions should be used sparingly, litigants with abusive, lengthy, and frivolous litigation histories may be enjoined from bringing further frivolous litigation. See De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147; see also Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.,1047, 1057 (9thCir.2007)(per curiam). A court should enter a pre-filing order restriction "only after a cautious review of the pertinent circumstances." Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057. Before entering a pre-filing order, the Court must determine (1) plaintiff is given adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard; (2) the court must provide an adequate record for review, including a listing of all the cases and motions that led the court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order was needed; (3) the court must make substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant's actions; and (4) the court order must be narrowly tailored. De Long, 912 F.2dat 1147-48; Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057.
In the present case, plaintiff's filing of approximately 40 motions, many of which raised similar, unsubstantiated allegations, and requested the same or similar relief, exhibits a disregard for the Court's rulings and an intent to harass the defendants and the Court. (See Exhibit "A".) Additionally, plaintiff has filed 70 actions in this District since 1994. (See Exhibit "B".) Based on the records currently available to the Court, it appears plaintiff has not prevailed on any of these actions. The Court concludes that plaintiff has abused the Court's process and is likely to continue abusing the system unless protective measures are taken. As such, within twenty (20) days of this Order, plaintiff is ORDERED to explain why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant, barring him from filing pro se complaints without prior court consent and the posting of a bond, and subjecting him to a pre-filing order in this action. Plaintiff should explain to the Court the justification for filing repetitive and largely frivolous motions in light of the factors referenced above and should also address the apparent misrepresentation to the Court regarding the dates upon which plaintiff allegedly served discovery on defendants. Plaintiff s mere disagreement with the Court's rulings is not sufficient.
____________________
THE HONORABLE DAVID T. BRISTOW
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
EXHIBIT "A"
Motions Filed by Plaintiff in the Instant Action
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦Date Motion¦Docket¦Motion for/to: ¦ ¦ ¦Filed ¦No. ¦ ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦1 ¦08/12/11 ¦14 ¦Appointment of Counsel ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦2 ¦08/12/11 ¦15 ¦Access to Law Library ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦3 ¦08/12/11 ¦16 ¦Access to Resources ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦4 ¦08/12/11 ¦17 ¦Access to Resources ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦5.¦08/23/11 ¦20 ¦Investigator ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦6 ¦08/23/11 ¦21 ¦Protective Order ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦7 ¦08/30/11 ¦24 ¦Access to Law Library ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦8 ¦08/30/11 ¦25 ¦Compliance with Physician's Order for treatment ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦9 ¦10/13/11 ¦32 ¦Default Judgment ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦10¦04/24/12 ¦71 ¦Appointment of Counsel ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦11¦05/16/12 ¦80 ¦Compel Discovery ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦12¦06/05/12 ¦85 ¦Protective Order ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦13¦11/07/12 ¦105 ¦Copy of Local Rules ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦14¦01/31/13 ¦129 ¦Order Permitting Plaintiff to Use Interview Room for ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Discovery ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦15¦01/31/13 ¦130 ¦Appointment of Private Investigator and Expert to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Review Medical Records and Prepare Report ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦16¦01/31/13 ¦131 ¦Copy of Local Rules; Access to Law Library; Appointment¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of Counsel ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦17¦02/11/13 ¦142 ¦Compel Discovery ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦18¦02/28/13 ¦153 ¦Compel Discovery ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦19¦02/28/13 ¦156 ¦Legal Assistance; Access to Law Library ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦20¦03/07/13 ¦148 ¦Order for Jail Medical to Determine Plaintiff's Ability¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦to Represent Himself ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦21¦03/07/13 ¦149 ¦Order Directing Sheriff to Provide Legal Materials to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiff ¦ +--+-----------+------+-------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦22¦03/07/13 ¦150 ¦District Judge's Review of Prejudice of Magistrate ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Judge ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦23¦04/05/¦184¦Reasonable ADA Accommodations ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+------+---+---------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦24¦04/05/¦185¦Order Restricting Defendants' Counsel from Discussing the Case ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+------+---+---------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦25¦04/08/¦162¦Strike Plaintiff's Deposition Testimony ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+------+---+---------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦26¦04/08/¦163¦Leave to Allow Discovery by a Written Deposition ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+------+---+---------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦27¦04/15/¦167¦Requiring Defendants to Serve Large Print Upon Plaintiff ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+------+---+---------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦28¦04/15/¦168¦Outside Examination by an Optomologist ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+------+---+---------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦29¦04/15/¦170¦Protective Order ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+------+---+---------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦30¦05/06/¦180¦Pro Se Status ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+------+---+---------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦31¦05/06/¦181¦Leave to Allow Deposition Questions as Interrogatories ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+------+---+---------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦32¦05/23/¦192¦Disqualification of Magistrate Judge ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+------+---+---------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦33¦06/03/¦199¦Extend Discovery Cut-off ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+------+---+---------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦34¦06/03/¦200¦Unredacted Copy of Police Report ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+------+---+---------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦35¦06/03/¦204¦Reconsideration of Denial of Motion tor Outside Examination by ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦an Optomologist ¦ +--+------+---+---------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦36¦06/03/¦208¦Extend the Limit of Interrogatories ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+------+---+---------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦37¦06/17/¦216¦Compel Discovery ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+------+---+---------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦38¦06/17/¦217¦Reconsideration of Motion to Strike ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+------+---+---------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦39¦06/24/¦222¦Ruling on ADA Accommodations ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+------+---+---------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦40¦06/27/¦221¦Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion re ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦Terminating Sanctions ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
EXHIBIT "B"
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦Date ¦Case No. ¦Case Title ¦Reason for Termination of ¦ ¦ ¦Filed¦ ¦ ¦Action ¦ +--+-----+---------------------+-------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦05/12¦ ¦Rodney O Brown v. ¦Judgment entered ¦ ¦I ¦/94 ¦2:94-cv-03133-RMT-CT ¦Jackie Wallman, et ¦dismissing the action ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦al ¦without prejudice ¦ +--+-----+---------------------+-------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦12/08¦ ¦Rodney O Brown v. ¦Judgment entered ¦ ¦2 ¦/94 ¦2:94-cv-08255-DT-SH ¦Pasadena Police ¦dismissing the action ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Dept, et al ¦without prejudice ¦ +--+-----+---------------------+-------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦09/06¦ ¦Ronnie O Grown v. L¦Judgment entered ¦ ¦3 ¦/95 ¦2:95-cv-0596l-DT-SH ¦Weteck, et al ¦dismissing the action ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦without prejudice ¦ +--+-----+---------------------+-------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦4 ¦10/28¦2:98-cv-08735-UA ¦Brown v. Lancaster ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/98 ¦ ¦City of, et al ¦ ¦ +--+-----+---------------------+-------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦01/22¦ ¦Ronnie O'Neal Brown¦First Amended Petition ¦ ¦5 ¦/99 ¦2:99-cv-00605-WDK-JWJ¦v. Cheryl K Pliler,¦denied, action dismissed ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦et al ¦with prejudice ¦ +--+-----+---------------------+-------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦6 ¦02/10¦2:00-cv-01478-SVW-JWJ¦Ronnie O Brown v. ¦Petition denied, action ¦ ¦ ¦/00 ¦ ¦Gail Lewis, et al ¦dismissed with prejudice. ¦ +--+-----+---------------------+-------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦08/20¦ ¦Ronnie Brown v. ¦Judgment entered ¦ ¦7 ¦/02 ¦2:02-cv-06499-HLH-JWJ¦John Doe, et al ¦dismissing the action ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦without prejudice ¦ +--+-----+---------------------+-------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦8 ¦09/16¦2:02-cv-07222-HLH-JWJ¦Rodney Brown, et al¦Motion to Dismiss granted ¦ ¦ ¦/02 ¦ ¦v. John Doe, et al ¦ ¦ +--+-----+---------------------+-------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦10/23¦ ¦Ronnie O Brown v. ¦Judgment entered ¦ ¦9 ¦/02 ¦2:02-cv-08180-CAS-JWJ¦Claude Finn ¦dismissing the action ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦without prejudice ¦ +--+-----+---------------------+-------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦10/31¦ ¦Ronnie Brown v. ¦ ¦ ¦10¦/02 ¦2:02-cv-08408-UA-JWJ ¦Pasadena City of, ¦In. Forma. Pauperis denied¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦et al ¦ ¦ +--+-----+---------------------+-------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦11/15¦ ¦Ronnie Brown v. ¦Judgment entered ¦ ¦11¦/02 ¦2:02-cv-08750-HLH-JWJ¦Barstow City of, et¦dismissing the action ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦al ¦without prejudice ¦ +--+-----+---------------------+-------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦06/27¦ ¦Ronnie Brown Sr v. ¦Petition denied and ¦ ¦12¦/03 ¦2:03-v-04634-AHS-E ¦Lee Baca, et al ¦dismissed without ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦prejudice ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦06¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦Ronnie Brown v. LA ¦ ¦ ¦13¦30¦2:03-cv-04654-UA-SGL¦Cnty Jail Dept of, et¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦al ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦03¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+---------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦07¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦2:03-cv-04688-LGB ¦Ronnie Brown Sr v. L ¦Judgment entered dismissing ¦ ¦14¦01¦-JWJ ¦Baca, et al ¦the entire action without ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ ¦prejudice ¦ ¦ ¦03¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+---------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦09¦ ¦ ¦Judgment entered denying the¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦2:03-cv-06319-VAP ¦Ronnie Brown Sr v. ¦First Amended Petition and ¦ ¦15¦04¦-JWJ ¦Dir of Corrections, ¦dismissing the action with ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦et al ¦prejudice ¦ ¦ ¦03¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+---------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦12¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦2:03-cv-09420-NM ¦Ronnie Brown v. Gail ¦Action dismissed without ¦ ¦16¦23¦-JWJ ¦Frarer, et al ¦prejudice ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦03¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+---------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦03¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:05-cv-00267-PA ¦Ronnie Brown v. ¦Petition dismissed without ¦ ¦17¦31¦-JWJ ¦People of the State ¦prejudice ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦of California et al ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦05¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+---------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦04¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:05-cv-00293-UA ¦Brown v, City of ¦ ¦ ¦18¦05¦-JWJ ¦Victorville et al ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦05¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+---------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦06¦ ¦Ronnie O'neill Brown ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:05-cv-00525-CAS ¦v. San Bernardino ¦Action dismissed without ¦ ¦19¦15¦-JWJ ¦County Sheriffs Dept ¦prejudice ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦et al ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦05¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+---------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:05-cv-00744-CAS ¦Ronnie ONeill Brown ¦Petition dismissed with ¦ ¦20¦10¦-JWJ ¦v. Gary Penrod ¦prejudice ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦05¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+---------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:05-cv-00746-CAS ¦Ronnie Brown v. D ¦Judgment entered dismissing ¦ ¦21¦10¦-JWJ ¦Phelps et al ¦the Complaint without ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ ¦prejudice ¦ ¦ ¦05¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+---------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦2;06-cv-05221-UA ¦Brown v. Phillips et ¦ ¦ ¦22¦18¦-JWJ ¦al ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦06¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+---------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦09¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦2:06-cv-05744-UA ¦Ronnie Brown v, ¦ ¦ ¦23¦12¦-JWJ ¦California State of ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦et al ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦06¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+---------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦09¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:06-cv-01008-UA ¦Ronnie O Brown v. ¦ ¦ ¦24¦14¦-JWJ ¦City of Rancho ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦Cucamonga ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦06¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+---------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦09¦ ¦Ronnie ONiell Brown ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:06-cv-01060-UA ¦v. The County of San ¦ ¦ ¦25¦26¦-JWJ ¦Bernardino Sheriff ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦Department ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦09¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+---------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦12¦ ¦Ronnie Brown v. State¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:06-cv-01419-CAS ¦of California ¦Judgment entered denying the¦ ¦26¦27¦-JWJ ¦Director of ¦Petition and dismissing the ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦Collections ¦action without prejudice ¦ ¦ ¦06¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦04¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:07-cv-00414-UA ¦Ronnie O Brown v. ¦ ¦ ¦27¦10¦-JWJ ¦Gary S Penrod et al¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦07¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+-------------------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦02¦ ¦ ¦Motion to Dismiss granted; ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦2:07-cv-00819-CAS ¦Ronnie ONeal Brown ¦Judgment entered dismissing ¦ ¦28¦03¦-DTB ¦v. Leroy Baca et al¦the. action without leave to ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ ¦amend and with prejudice ¦ ¦ ¦07¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+-------------------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦03¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦2:07-cv-01525-CAS ¦Ronnie O Brown v. ¦Motion to Dismiss granted; ¦ ¦29¦08¦-JWJ ¦California State of¦Judgment entered dismissing, ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦et al ¦the Petition without prejudice¦ ¦ ¦07¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+-------------------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦03¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦2:07-cv-01529-CAS ¦Ronnie O Brown v. ¦Judgment dismissing the ¦ ¦30¦08¦-JWJ ¦People of the State¦Petition without prejudice as ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦of California et al¦unexhausted ¦ ¦ ¦07¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+-------------------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦12¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:07-cv-01628-PA ¦Ronnie Brown v. ¦Petition dismissed without ¦ ¦31¦07¦-JWJ ¦People State of ¦prejudice ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦California et al ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦07¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+-------------------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦12¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:07-cv-01631-UA ¦Ronnie O Brown v. ¦ ¦ ¦32¦07¦-JWJ ¦Jassmyn Sanchez et ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦al ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦07¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+-------------------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦12¦ ¦Ronnie Brown et al ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:07-cv-01648-UA ¦v. San Bernardino ¦ ¦ ¦33¦13¦-JWJ ¦County Sheriff Dept¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦et al ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦07¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+-------------------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦01¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:08-cv-00011-UA ¦Ronnie O Brown v. ¦ ¦ ¦34¦07¦-JWJ ¦Dept Adult Parole ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦Operations et al ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+-------------------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦01¦ ¦Ronnie O Brown v. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:08-cv-00013-UA ¦The California Dept¦ ¦ ¦35¦07¦-JWJ ¦of Corrections et ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦al ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+-------------------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦01¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:08-cv-00014-UA ¦Ronnie O Brown v. ¦ ¦ ¦36¦07¦-JWJ ¦The City of ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦Victorville et al ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+-------------------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦01¦ ¦Ronnie O. Brown v. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:08-cv-00065-CAS ¦State of California¦Judgment entered dismissing ¦ ¦37¦18¦-DTB ¦Dept of Corrections¦the action without prejudice ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦et al ¦for failure to prosecute ¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+-------------------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦01¦ ¦Ronnie O Brown v. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦San Bernardino ¦ ¦ ¦38¦28¦5:08-cv-00105-UA-JWJ¦County Sheriff et ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦al ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+--------------------+-------------------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦02¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:08-cv-00271-UA ¦Ronnie O Brown v. ¦ ¦ ¦39¦27¦-JWJ ¦Marcia M Taylor et ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦al ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦07¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦2:08-cv-04379-UA ¦Ronnie Brown v. California¦ ¦ ¦40¦02¦-JWJ ¦Department of Corrections ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦et al ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:08-cv-01032-UA ¦Ronnie O Brown v. San ¦ ¦ ¦41¦01¦-JWJ ¦Bernardino County Sheriff ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦Dept et al ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦2:08-cv-05362-CAS¦Ronnie O. Brown v. Lee ¦Judgment entered ¦ ¦42¦15¦-JWJ ¦Baca et a] ¦dismissing the action ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ ¦without prejudice ¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦Ronnie O Brown et al v. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:08-cv-01144-UA ¦County of San Bernardino ¦ ¦ ¦43¦27¦-JWJ ¦Alternative Defense Panel ¦In Forma Pauperis dented ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦et al ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦Judgment entered ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:08-cv-01156-CAS¦Ronnie Brown v. County of ¦dismissing the action ¦ ¦44¦27¦-DTB ¦San Bernardino Sheriff ¦without, prejudice for ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦Dept et al ¦failure to prosecute ¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:08-cv-01157-UA ¦Ronnie O. Brown v. San ¦ ¦ ¦45¦27¦-JWJ ¦Bernardino County et al ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦09¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:08-cv-01295-UA ¦Ronnie Brown v. Branden ¦ ¦ ¦46¦19¦-JWJ ¦Woods ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦09¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦2:08-cv-06311-UA ¦Ronnie O. Brown v. Lee ¦ ¦ ¦47¦25¦-JWJ ¦Baca et al ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦10¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦2:08-cv-06608-UA ¦Ronnie O. Brown v. Stizann¦ ¦ ¦48¦07¦-JWJ ¦Hubbard et al ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦10¦ ¦ ¦Judgment entered ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦2:08-cv-06664-CAS¦Ronnie O'Neal Brown v. ¦dismissing the action ¦ ¦49¦10¦-DTB ¦County of Los Angeles et ¦without prejudice for ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦al ¦failure to prosecute ¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦11¦ ¦ ¦Judgment entered ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:08-cv-01672-CAS¦Ronnie O Brown v. Jassmyn ¦dismissing the action with¦ ¦50¦18¦-DTB ¦Sanchez et al ¦prejudice for failure to ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ ¦prosecute ¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦12¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:08-cv-.01878-UA¦Ronnie O Brown v. San ¦ ¦ ¦51¦18¦-JWJ ¦Bernardino County et al ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦08¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦01¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:09-cv-00099-UA ¦Ronnie O. Brown v. San ¦ ¦ ¦52¦15¦-JWJ ¦Bernadino County etal ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦09¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+--+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦ ¦02¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦5:09-cv-00235-UA ¦Ronnie O. Brown v. L. ¦ ¦ ¦53¦04¦-JWJ ¦Taylor et al ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦09¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦06/¦2:11-cv-05415-CAS ¦Ronnie O. Brown v. ¦ ¦ ¦54¦29/¦-DTB ¦Rod Hoops et al ¦matter pending ¦ ¦ ¦11 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+---+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦07/¦5:11-cv-01097-CAS ¦Ronnie Brown v. Rod ¦Order Summarily Dismissing ¦ ¦55¦13/¦-DTB ¦Hoops ¦Action ¦ ¦ ¦11 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+---+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦07/¦5:11-cv-01204-CAS ¦Ronsan Brown v. Rod ¦Order Summarily Dismissing ¦ ¦56¦29/¦-DTB ¦Hoops ¦Action ¦ ¦ ¦11 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+---+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦08/¦5:11-cv-01268-CAS ¦Ronnie Brown v. Lynn ¦ ¦ ¦57¦09/¦-DTB ¦Poncin et al ¦In Forma Pauperis revoked ¦ ¦ ¦11 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+---+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦09/¦5:11-cv-01511-UA ¦Ronnie Brown v. Chuek¦ ¦ ¦58¦21/¦-DTB ¦Williams et al ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦11 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+---+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦09/¦5:11-cv-01520-CAS ¦Ronson Brown v. Rod ¦Action dismissed pursuant ¦ ¦59¦22/¦-DTB ¦Hoops ¦to Rule 4 ¦ ¦ ¦11 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+---+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦09/¦2:11-cv-07974-UA ¦Ronnie O Brown v. ¦ ¦ ¦60¦27/¦-DTB ¦Leroy Baca et al ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦11 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+---+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦10/¦5:11-cv-01716-CAS ¦Ronnie Brown v. Rod ¦Petition dismissed pursuant¦ ¦61¦27/¦-DTB ¦Hoops ¦to Rule 4 ¦ ¦ ¦11 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+---+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦11/¦5:11-cv-01808-CAS ¦Ronnie Brown v. Rod I¦ ¦ ¦62¦10/¦-DTB ¦loops et al ¦Case voluntary dismissed ¦ ¦ ¦11 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+---+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦11/¦5:11-cv-01855-UA ¦Ronnie Brown v. John ¦ ¦ ¦63¦21/¦-DTB ¦Doe et al ¦In Forma Pauperis revoked ¦ ¦ ¦11 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+---+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦12/¦5:11-cv-01908-CAS ¦Ronnie O Brown v. Rod¦ ¦ ¦64¦01/¦-DTB ¦Hoops etal ¦In Forma Pauperis revoked ¦ ¦ ¦11 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+---+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦01/¦2:13-cv-00154-PA- ¦Rodney Brown v. John ¦ ¦ ¦65¦09/¦VBK ¦Doe 1 et al ¦In Forma Pauperis revoked ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+---+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦01/¦2:13-cv-00161-PA- ¦Rodney Brown v. ¦ ¦ ¦66¦09/¦VBK ¦County of Los ¦matter pending ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦Angeles, et al ¦ ¦ +--+---+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦01/¦2:13-cv-00660-PA- ¦Rodney Brown v. Lee ¦Petition is dismissed ¦ ¦67¦30/¦MLG ¦Baca ¦without prejudice ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+---+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦02/¦2:13-cv-01225-PA- ¦Rodney Brown v. Leroy¦Judgment entered dismissing¦ ¦68¦20/¦MLG ¦Baca ¦the Petition without ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦prejudice ¦ +--+---+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦02/¦2:13-cv-01476-UA- ¦Rodney Brown v. Ron ¦ ¦ ¦69¦28/¦MLG ¦Brown ¦In Forma Pauperis denied ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--+---+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦04/¦ ¦Rodney Brown v. San ¦Transferred to Western ¦ ¦70¦19/¦5:13-cv-00728-UA-VBK¦Bernardino, County of¦Division ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦et al ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
EXHIBIT "C"
Image materials not available for display.