# Gold

> District Court, E.D. California · April 24, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11381385

## Case

- **Full name:** Ronnie Cherokee Brown v. M. Gold
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** April 24, 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/11381385

## 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. 2:26-cv-1396-JDP (P)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
14 M. GOLD,

15 Defendant.
16
17
18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed an amended complaint that vaguely alleges that
19 defendant M. Gold, a psychologist at the California Healthcare Facility, violated his First and
20 Eighth Amendment rights by denying him adequate medical care and retaliating against him for
21 filing, or planning to file, federal lawsuits. Before this action can proceed, however, plaintiff
22 must pay the filing fee because he is a “three-striker” within the meaning of Title 28 U.S.C.
23 § 1915(g). Plaintiff has had at least three cases effectively dismissed for failure to state a claim
24 upon which relief can be granted: (1) Brown v. Castrillo, 2:19-cv-0248-MCE-CKD (P), dismissed
25 February 6, 2020 for failure to state a claim; (2) Brown v. Gutierrez, 2:21-cv-0655-JAM-CKD
26 (P), dismissed June 29, 2021 for seeking monetary damages from a defendant immune from suit;
27 (3) Brown v. Katz, 2:21-cv-2288-JAM-EFB (P), dismissed March 16, 2022 because claim was
28
1 | barred by prior settlement;! and (4) Brown v. People of the State of California, 5:04-cv-2540-JW
2 | (Northern District), dismissed March 15, 2005, on screening because cause of action had not
3 || accrued.
4 Plaintiff might be entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in spite of this status, if he alleged
5 | he was in imminent danger. The claims do not make such an allegation insofar as they relate to
6 | events that occurred in June 2025 and do not appear to be ongoing.
7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this
8 | action.
9 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis,
10 | ECF No. 2, be DENIED and plaintiff be directed to tender the filing fee within twenty-one days
11 | of any order adopting these recommendations.
12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
13 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of
14 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the
15 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to
16 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed
17 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
18 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See
19 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.
20 | 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ April 24, 2026 q———
23 JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27 ' 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-A WI-SAB (PC), 2021 US. Dist.
28 | LEXIS 153114, *10-11 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2021).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11381385. Public record. Not legal advice.