Bradford v. Garcia
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01164
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bradford v. Garcia, Judge Hamilton ordered Bradford to explain why he should receive a filing-fee waiver.
Raymond Alford Bradford, whose request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee was placed in question; the case could continue if he successfully contested the identified strikes, showed imminent danger, or paid the full filing fee by the deadline.
What happened
In Bradford v. Garcia, Raymond Alford Bradford, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights lawsuit and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.
The court identified four earlier cases that appeared to qualify as strikes under a law limiting fee waivers for prisoners with three or more qualifying dismissals. The court gave Bradford until April 22, 2021, to challenge those earlier dismissals or show that he faced imminent danger; he could instead avoid dismissal by paying the full $402 filing fee.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton did not dismiss the case in this order. She ordered Bradford to show cause why the case should not be barred from proceeding without prepaying the fee and why his fee-waiver application should not be denied.
The detailed version
- Bradford v. Garcia · No. 4:21-cv-01164
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
Raymond Alford Bradford, identified as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against E. Garcia and others. He also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee at the beginning of the case.
Legal standard
The Prison Litigation Reform Act bars a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee if, on three or more earlier occasions while incarcerated or detained, the prisoner brought an action or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. The exception is when the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. A dismissal under this rule prevents the prisoner from proceeding without prepaying the fee, but the prisoner may still pursue the claims by paying the full fee at the outset.
The court explained that Bradford had to be notified of the earlier dismissals being considered and given an opportunity to contest them before the court could dismiss the action on this basis. Bradford bears the ultimate burden of showing that the filing-fee restriction does not apply.
Earlier dismissals identified by the court
The court stated that Bradford appeared to have at least three qualifying strikes and identified four earlier cases:
- Bradford v. Terhune, No. 04-5496 AWI DLB, in the Eastern District of California, dismissed for failure to state a claim. - Bradford v. Terhune, No. 04-5261 LJO SMS, in the Eastern District of California, dismissed for failure to state a claim. - Bradford v. Grannis, No. 05-0862 FCD DAD SAB, in the Eastern District of California, dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. - Bradford v. Attorney General of California, No. 18-3249 JAM EFB, in the Eastern District of California, dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Order
The court ordered Bradford to show cause by April 22, 2021, why the case should not be treated as barred by the three-strikes rule and why his application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee should not be denied. Although the court said Bradford appeared to concede in his complaint and fee application that the three-strikes rule applied, it gave him another opportunity to challenge the earlier dismissals or present arguments showing imminent danger.
Alternatively, Bradford could avoid dismissal by paying the full $402 filing fee by the deadline. The order did not itself dismiss the case or rule on the underlying civil-rights claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.