Bradford v. Day
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-02133
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bradford v. Day, Judge Hamilton reopened the case and ordered Bradford to explain why he should receive fee-waiver status.
Raymond Alford Bradford, whose ability to proceed without paying the filing fee was questioned; the case was reopened so he could respond before the court decided whether the three-dismissal rule barred that status.
What happened
In Bradford v. Day, Raymond Alford Bradford, a state prisoner representing himself, asked to reopen his civil-rights case after it was dismissed without prejudice because he had not submitted an application to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court said Bradford appeared to have at least three earlier qualifying dismissals under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. A prisoner with three such dismissals generally cannot proceed without paying the filing fee unless he shows that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton vacated the earlier judgment and ordered the clerk to reopen the case. She gave Bradford until March 28, 2022, to explain why the three-dismissal rule should not apply, or he could avoid dismissal by paying the $402 filing fee; the opinion excerpt does not state what happened next.
The detailed version
- Bradford v. Day · No. 4:21-cv-02133
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 4, 2022
Background
Raymond Alford Bradford, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against R. Day. The case had previously been dismissed without prejudice because Bradford did not file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning an application to proceed without paying the filing fee at the outset. Bradford then moved to proceed without paying and asked the court to reopen the case.
Three-dismissal rule
The court discussed 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That provision generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee if the prisoner previously had three or more federal actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner was under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court stated that Bradford appeared to have at least four qualifying dismissals in earlier cases: two for failure to state a claim, one as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, and one for failure to state a claim. The court cited the following docket numbers: No. 04-5496 AWI DLB, No. 04-5261 LJO SMS, No. 05-0862 FCD DAD SAB, and No. 18-3249 JAM EFB. Under the cited precedent, Bradford had to receive notice and an opportunity to contest whether the earlier dismissals counted or to present arguments about imminent danger.
Ruling and next steps
The court VACATED the judgment in this case and directed the clerk to REOPEN the case. It ordered Bradford to show cause by March 28, 2022, why the case should not be treated as barred by the three-dismissal rule and why his application to proceed without paying should not be denied. The court said Bradford could contest the earlier dismissals, present further arguments about imminent danger, or submit no additional filing. Alternatively, he could avoid dismissal by paying the full $402 filing fee by the deadline.
The provided opinion text ends while referring to Bradford’s motion to file a supplemental complaint and does not state that motion’s disposition.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.