Bradford v. Vella-Lopez et al

Filing 5

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, and Dismissing Action, Without Prejudice to Refiling With Submission of $350.00 Filing Fee in Full, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/23/11. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00990-AWI-SKO PC

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, AND DISMISSING ACTION,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING WITH
SUBMISSION OF $350.00 FILING FEE IN
FULL

10
v.
11
I. VELLA-LOPEZ, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13

(Docs. 1 and 2)
/

14
15

Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights

16

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 15, 2011. Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma

17

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Docs. 1, 2.)

18

Section 1915(g) provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under

19

this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any

20

facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds

21

that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the

22

prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Plaintiff is subject to section 1915(g)

23

and is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is, at the time the complaint is filed,

24

under imminent danger of serious physical injury.1

25
1

26
27
28

The Court takes judicial notice of case numbers 2:98-cv-00180-FCD-JFM PC Bradford v. W hite (E.D.
Cal.) (dismissed 06/03/1999 as time barred); 2:02-cv-01859-FCD-GGH PC Bradford v. Terhune (E.D. Cal.)
(dismissed 06/18/2003 pursuant to section 1915(g) on a motion to dismiss); 1:04-cv-05496-AW I-DLB PC Bradford
v. Terhune (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed 10/21/2004 for failure to state a claim); 2:05-cv-00862-FCD-DAD PC (E.D. Cal.)
(dismissed 09/30/2005 for failure to state a claim and as frivolous); and 1:07-cv-01031-OW W -LJO Bradford v.
Superior Court of California (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed 08/21/2007 as frivolous).

1

1

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that Plaintiff does not meet the

2

imminent danger exception.2 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). Because

3

Plaintiff alleges no facts supporting a finding that he is under imminent danger of serious physical

4

injury, Plaintiff is ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis in this action.

5

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action is denied; and

7

2.

This action is dismissed, without prejudice to refiling with the submission of the

8

$350.00 filing fee in full.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated:
0m8i78

August 23, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

Plaintiff’s allegations concern medical care issues and the failure to process his inmate appeals concerning
those issues.

2