Bradford v. Day
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-02133
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bradford v. Day, Judge Hamilton denied fee-waiver status and dismissed the action without prejudice because Bradford had not paid the filing fee.
Raymond Alford Bradford’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee was denied, and his civil-rights action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the fee.
What happened
Bradford v. Day involved Raymond Alford Bradford, a state prisoner representing himself, who filed a civil-rights complaint and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that prison staff failed to protect him, denied medical care and court access, and used excessive force.
The court found that four earlier dismissals counted against Bradford under the prisoner three-strikes rule. Bradford did not sufficiently challenge those dismissals or show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed this case. The court also noted that he had continued litigating many cases in federal court, undercutting his claim that officials were blocking his access to the courts.
Judge Hamilton denied Bradford’s request to proceed without paying the fee and dismissed the action for failure to pay it. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning Bradford could bring the claims in a new complaint if he paid the full filing fee when filing it.
The detailed version
- Bradford v. Day · No. 4:21-cv-02133
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 25, 2022
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. The court had previously ordered him to show why the case should not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee when the prisoner has had three or more prior cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim, unless the prisoner faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury.
The court had identified four earlier dismissals that appeared to count under this rule. It told Bradford that he could avoid dismissal either by showing that the dismissals should not count or by paying the filing fee by the deadline. Bradford responded but did not sufficiently challenge the validity of any of the four dismissals.
Imminent-danger exception
Bradford argued that he qualified for the exception because of serious underlying health conditions, alleged interference with his access to the courts, and allegations that prison officials and guards were conspiring to murder him and had repeatedly attacked him.
The court rejected those arguments. Bradford listed his health problems but did not explain how they placed him in immediate danger. He filed the complaints while held at the California Health Care Facility, but his claims concerned events at Salinas Valley State Prison, and he did not explain how any danger at the California Health Care Facility was connected to the conduct alleged in the complaint.
The court also noted that Bradford had filed and litigated numerous cases in the federal courts during the previous four years, which indicated that he could adequately access the courts. Regarding the alleged conspiracy and assaults, the court found that Bradford had repeated similar general and conclusive allegations for several years and had not plausibly shown that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury from a conspiracy.
Ruling
The court held that all four earlier dismissals counted for purposes of § 1915(g). Bradford had not paid the filing fee, had not shown that the dismissals could not be counted, and had not shown that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the case.
Judge Hamilton denied Bradford’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court 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 paid the full filing fee when filing it. The order did not decide the merits of Bradford’s underlying allegations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.