# Singh > District Court, E.D. California · April 23, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11381307 ## Case - **Full name:** Ronnie Cherokee Brown v. M. Singh, et al. - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** April 23, 2026 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11381307 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN, Case No. 2:25-cv-1353-DC-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 M. SINGH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brought this section 1983 action alleging that defendants 18 violated his First and Eighth Amendment rights. ECF No. 12 at 24-26. Pending are plaintiff’s 19 motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 49, and motion to compel, ECF No. 57. Additionally, 20 defendants have filed a motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, alleging that he is a 21 “three-striker” within the meaning of section 1915(g). ECF No. 60. I find, for the reasons that 22 follow, that plaintiff’s motions should be denied, and defendants’ motion should be granted. 23 Motion for Injunctive Relief 24 Plaintiff alleges that one of the named defendants, Q. Sharp, physically harassed him on 25 December 24, 2025, after this action was filed. ECF No. 49 at 1-3. He styles the motion as one 26 for injunctive relief, but I cannot tell what specific relief or intervention he is requesting. 27 Moreover, defendants have filed an opposition with evidence contradicting plaintiff’s allegations 28 1 of physical harassment. They have submitted declarations from defendant Sharp and another 2 correctional officer, Carroll, that attest that Sharp did not physically assault plaintiff. ECF Nos. 3 54-2 at 2; 54-3 at 2. Defendants have also submitted video evidence that contradicts plaintiff’s 4 allegations. ECF No. 54-1 at 2-3 (description of footage from litigation coordinator B. Ebert; the 5 court has also viewed the footage). In his reply, plaintiff reiterates his allegations but 6 acknowledges that he doesn’t know why the camera did not capture the incident.1 ECF No. 58 at 7 1. In the face of this contradictory evidence, I find that plaintiff’s unsupported allegations of 8 harassment are insufficient to make a showing that irreparable harm will befall him if preliminary 9 injunctive relief does not issue. See National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries 10 Services, 886 F.3d 803, 822 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief must show that 11 they themselves are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.”). Accordingly, I 12 recommend that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 49, be denied. 13 Motion to Compel 14 Plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 57, is denied because, as defendants point out in 15 their opposition, discovery is not open, and the case has not yet been scheduled, ECF No. 63. 16 Motion to Revoke in Forma Pauperis Status 17 Defendants have filed a motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, and argue 18 that he is a “three-striker” within the meaning of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ECF No. 60. I agree. 19 The court takes judicial notice of the following cases constituting strikes because each was 20 effectively dismissed for failure to state a claim: (1) Brown v. Castrillo, 2:19-cv-0248-MCE-CKD 21 (P), dismissed February 6, 2020 for failure to state a claim; (2) Brown v. Gutierrez, 2:21-cv-0655- 22 JAM-CKD (P), dismissed June 29, 2021 for seeking monetary damages from a defendant immune 23 from suit; (3) Brown v. Katz, 2:21-cv-2288-JAM-EFB (P), dismissed March 16, 2022 because 24 claim was barred by prior settlement;2 and (4) Brown v. People of the State of California, 5:04- 25 cv-2540-JW (Northern District), dismissed March 15, 2005, on screening because cause of action 26 1 Defendants arranged for plaintiff to view the footage. ECF No. 54-1 at 2. 27 2 Other courts have found that dismissal on res judicata grounds can generate a “strike” under the PLRA. See Lamon v. Pfeiffer, No.: 1:20-cv-00896-AWI-SAB (PC), 2021 U.S. Dist. 28 LEXIS 153114, *10-11 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2021). 1 had not accrued. Defendants have attached these court documents to their motion, ECF No. 60-1 2 at 5-37, and I find it appropriate to take judicial notice of them. See Chandler v. United States, 3 378 F.2d 906, 909-910 (9th Cir. 1967). Defendants note that one court in the Northern District of 4 California has already found it appropriate to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status based on 5 some of the cases listed supra. ECF No. 60-1 at 47-49. I find this decision persuasive. 6 Plaintiff might still proceed in forma pauperis if his complaint alleged that he was in 7 imminent danger. It does not. Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges that, between February and 8 April 2025, he witnessed and was subject to defendants’ propensity to use excessive force.3 ECF 9 No. 12 at 10. This action, however, was filed on May 12, 2025. ECF No. 1. In his amended 10 complaint, plaintiff does allege that he fears that defendants will retaliate against him for filing 11 this suit, but these non-specific allegations of possible future harm are not sufficient to establish 12 imminent danger. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he 13 availability of the exception [to Section 1915(g)] turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the 14 time the complaint was filed, not at some earlier or later time.”); see also Franks v. Luna, No. 15 1:25-cv-0414 JLT EPG (PC), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197370, *6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2025) 16 (“Plaintiff’s past injury—as well as a general fear of ‘possible retaliation’ do not show imminent 17 danger of serious physical injury.”). 18 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 57, is DENIED. 19 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 20 1. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 49, be DENIED. 21 2. Defendants’ motion to revoke IFP status, ECF No. 60, be GRANTED, plaintiff’s 22 in forma pauperis status be revoked, and he be ordered to submit the filing fee within thirty days4 23 of any order adopting these recommendations. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 3 The use-of-force incident at issue allegedly occurred on March 28, 2025. ECF No. 12 at 24. 26 4 In his second, non-permitted opposition, plaintiff asks that, if his IFP status is revoked, 27 he be given sixty days to submit the filing fee. ECF No. 67 at 2. If these recommendations are adopted, and thirty days from that date proves insufficient, plaintiff may motion for a reasonable 28 extension of time. 1 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 2 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 3 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 4 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 5 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 6 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 7 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (th Cir. 8 | 1991). 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 23, 2026 q———_ 12 JEREMY D. PETERSON 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11381307. Public record. Not legal advice.