Bradford v. Marchak

Filing 2

ORDER Denying Motion For Leave To Proceed In Forma Pauperis And Dismissing Action Without Prejudice To Refiling With Submission Of $400.00 Filing Fee (ECF No. 1 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/4/2014. CASE CLOSED. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

vs.
M. MARCHAK, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14-cv-01689-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO REFILING WITH
SUBMISSION OF $400.00 FILING FEE
(ECF No. 1)

15
16

Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed

17

this civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 29, 2014. Plaintiff seeks leave

18

to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. (ECF No. 1.)

19

However, Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that “[i]n no event

20

shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior

21

occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of

22

the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state

23

a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of

24

serious physical injury.”1 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and his allegations do not

25
1

26
27
28

The Court takes judicial notice of the following United States District Court cases: Bradford v. White, 2:98-cv00180-FCD-JFM PC (dismissed 06/03/1999 as time barred); Bradford v. Terhune, 2:02-cv-01859-FCD-GGH PC
(dismissed 06/18/2003 pursuant to section 1915(g) on a motion to dismiss); Bradford v. Terhune, 1:04-cv-05496AWI-DLB PC (dismissed 10/21/2004 for failure to state a claim); Bradford v. Grannis, 2:05-cv-00862-FCD-DAD
PC (dismissed 9/30/2005 for failure to state a claim and as frivolous; and Bradford v. Superior Court of California,
1:07-cv-01031-OWW-LJO (dismissed 08/21/2007 as frivolous).

1

1
2
3

satisfy the imminent danger exception to section 1915(g).2 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d
1047, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, Plaintiff must pay the $400.00 filing fee if he wishes
to litigate this claim.
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

4

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action is DENIED;

5

2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice to re-filing accompanied by the $400.00

6

filing fee; and

7

3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

10

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

November 4, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11

4.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff alleges that he has been involuntarily medicated with psychotropic medication due to mental illness since
approximately November 2012. Plaintiff claims that an administrative law judge has continued to allow the
involuntary medication to continue via a Keyhea petition, but that the medication causes side effects, such as
dizziness, headaches, chest pain and blurred vision. By his own admission, Plaintiff has been involuntarily
medicated with psychotropic medications since 2012, and has been complaining of medication side effects from
November 6, 2013, to the present. (ECF No. 1, p. 8.) Such an admission suggests that any purported side effects
from the medication, which he has been experiencing for at least 1 year, do not demonstrate imminent danger of
serious physical injury at the time the complaint was filed.

2