Bradford v. Lemon

Background

Raymond Alford Bradford, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court issued an order requiring him to explain why his fee-waiver application and case should not be denied under the prisoner-litigation rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Section 1915(g) generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee if the prisoner has had three or more earlier federal cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. The exception applies when the prisoner was facing an immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court’s earlier order identified four dismissals that appeared to qualify and also told Bradford that he could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee by the deadline.

Bradford’s response and the court’s analysis

Bradford did not dispute that he had at least three qualifying dismissals. He argued instead that the immediate-danger exception applied. His allegations included claims that prison officials and attorneys from a private attorney’s office were conspiring to have him murdered, tampering with his mail, interfering with his ability to file cases, and assaulting him. He stated that guards assaulted him on March 12, 2021.

The court concluded that Bradford had not plausibly shown that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed this case. Regarding his claim that officials interfered with his access to the courts, the court noted that he had filed and litigated numerous cases in four federal district courts during the preceding four years. The court therefore found that he appeared able to access the courts.

The court also found that Bradford had repeatedly made similar general allegations about assaults by guards and a conspiracy to murder him over several years. In addition, the court stated that the case was filed on February 17, 2021, while Bradford was at Salinas Valley State Prison, and that the alleged March 12 assault occurred nearly a month later and possibly at a different prison. The court treated each of the four earlier dismissals identified in its order as qualifying dismissals, and found that Bradford had neither paid the filing fee nor shown that the dismissals should not count.

Disposition

The court denied Bradford’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. It dismissed the action for failure to pay the filing fee. The dismissal was without prejudice to Bradford asserting his claims in a new complaint for which he pays the full filing fee when filing it. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on May 3, 2021.