Bradford v. Lemon
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01165
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bradford v. Lemon, Judge Hamilton ordered Bradford to explain why the court should not deny fee assistance based on three prior dismissals.
Raymond Alford Bradford, whose request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee was put at issue; the case remained subject to further action after his response or payment.
What happened
In Bradford v. Lemon, Raymond Alford Bradford filed a civil-rights lawsuit without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. The court identified four earlier cases that appeared to qualify as dismissals counting against him under a federal prisoner-litigation rule.
The court did not yet decide whether the fee request would be denied or whether the case would be dismissed. Instead, it ordered Bradford to explain by April 22, 2021, why the rule should not apply, including whether he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury.
Judge Hamilton also said Bradford could avoid dismissal by paying the full $402 filing fee by the deadline. The order gave Bradford another opportunity to challenge the earlier dismissals or present arguments about immediate danger.
The detailed version
- Bradford v. Lemon · No. 4:21-cv-01165
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
Raymond Alford Bradford, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee if the prisoner has had three or more earlier federal actions or appeals 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. The court explained that a dismissal under this rule prevents a prisoner from proceeding as a fee-waived litigant, but does not prevent the prisoner from pursuing the claims after paying the full filing fee.
Potential qualifying dismissals
The court identified four earlier cases that appeared to qualify as “strikes” under the rule:
- 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.
Ruling
The court ordered Bradford to show cause by April 22, 2021, why this 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 stated that Bradford appeared to concede in his complaint and fee application that the rule barred him, but gave him another opportunity to challenge the listed dismissals 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. The order itself was a show-cause directive; it did not state that the fee application was denied or that the action was dismissed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.