Bradford v. Day
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-02133
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bradford v. Day, Judge Hamilton denied Bradford’s request to reopen the dismissed prisoner civil-rights case under Rule 60(b).
The ruling affects Raymond Alford Bradford’s attempt to reopen his dismissed civil-rights case against R. Day.
What happened
Bradford v. Day involved Raymond Alford Bradford’s request to reopen his civil-rights case against R. Day. The court had dismissed the case after denying Bradford permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Bradford asked the court to reconsider, but he did not present new arguments or evidence that had been unavailable earlier. The court said Bradford was barred by the prisoner three-strikes rule and had not shown that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the case.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied the motion for relief from judgment. The court said allegations that money had been stolen from Bradford did not justify reopening this case, although he could file a new case in the district where that occurred.
The detailed version
- Bradford v. Day · No. 4:21-cv-02133
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 22, 2023
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 was dismissed on April 25, 2022, after the court denied Bradford’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Section 1915(g), commonly called the prisoner “three-strikes” rule, generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee if the prisoner previously brought three or more federal actions or appeals that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. An exception applies when the prisoner faces an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also gave Bradford an opportunity to pay the full filing fee, but he did not submit the fee.
Motion and Analysis
Bradford filed a motion for reconsideration. The court construed it as a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule allows a court to provide relief from a judgment on specified grounds, such as mistake, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason that justifies relief. Motions under the rule must be filed within a reasonable time, and motions based on some grounds must be filed within one year.
The court found that Bradford did not raise new arguments or provide new evidence that had been unavailable when the court denied his application to proceed without paying the fee. The court stated that Bradford was barred by the three-strikes rule and was not under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the case.
The court addressed Bradford’s allegation that money had been stolen from him and could have been used to pay the filing fee. It stated that Bradford could file a new case in the district where the alleged theft occurred, but that allegation did not permit the present case to be reopened.
Disposition
The court denied Bradford’s motion for relief from judgment, docketed as No. 15. The order did not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.