Bradford v. Lemon
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01162
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bradford v. Lemon, Judge Hamilton ordered Bradford to explain why the three-strikes rule should not bar fee-free filing.
Raymond Alford Bradford, whose ability to proceed without prepaying the filing fee was questioned; T. Lemon was the named defendant.
What happened
Raymond Alford Bradford, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint against T. Lemon and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court identified four earlier cases involving Bradford that appeared to qualify as dismissals, or “strikes,” under the prisoner three-strikes rule. That rule generally prevents a prisoner with at least three qualifying dismissals from proceeding without paying the full filing fee unless the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court ordered Bradford to show cause by April 22, 2021, why the case should not be barred and his fee-waiver application denied. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also gave him the option of paying the full $402 filing fee by that deadline; the order did not yet dismiss the case or decide the application.
The detailed version
- Bradford v. Lemon · No. 4:21-cv-01162
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
Raymond Alford Bradford, identified as a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against T. Lemon. Bradford also filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee under the federal statute that permits qualifying litigants to proceed without prepaying court fees.
Three-strikes rule
The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that a prisoner may not proceed without prepaying the filing fee if, on three or more earlier occasions while incarcerated or detained, the prisoner filed an action or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. An exception applies if the prisoner was under imminent danger of serious physical injury. A dismissal under this rule prevents proceeding without prepaying the fee, but the prisoner may still pursue the claims by paying the full filing fee at the beginning of the case.
The court identified four earlier cases that appeared to qualify as strikes against Bradford:
- Bradford v. Terhune, No. 04-5496 AWI DLB (E.D. Cal.), dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- Bradford v. Terhune, No. 04-5261 LJO SMS (E.D. Cal.), dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- Bradford v. Grannis, No. 05-0862 FCD DAD SAB (E.D. Cal.), dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.
- Bradford v. Attorney General of California, No. 18-3249 JAM EFB (E.D. Cal.), 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. The court noted that Bradford appeared to concede in his complaint and fee application that the rule barred him, but it gave him another opportunity to challenge the identified strike cases or present arguments that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Alternatively, Bradford could avoid dismissal by paying the full $402 filing fee by the deadline. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued the order on March 22, 2021. The order was a show-cause directive; it did not itself dismiss the action or finally rule on the fee application.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.