Bradford v. Javate

Background

Raymond Alford Bradford, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion says Bradford appeared to acknowledge that he had three prior filing strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). He argued that he should still be allowed to proceed because he was allegedly in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Bradford also sought to avoid the requirement that he complete available prison administrative remedies. He attributed that request to an alleged ongoing conspiracy against him.

Legal standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing an action about prison conditions under § 1983 or another federal law. The court stated that exhaustion is mandatory and that courts may not create their own exceptions based on special circumstances. The court also explained that exhaustion is required even when the administrative process cannot provide the type of relief sought, such as money damages.

Order

The court stated that Bradford might be able to proceed despite a three-strikes bar, but that he still had to exhaust administrative remedies. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered Bradford to file a response by November 27, 2020, addressing why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust.

The opinion is an order requiring a response; it does not state that the case was dismissed.