Raymond Bradford v. M. Marchak

Ninth Circuit

Raymond Bradford v. M. Marchak

667 F. App'x 616

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 27, 2016

Docket15-15071

StatusUnpublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 667 F. App'x 616 (Raymond Bradford v. M. Marchak) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Raymond Bradford v. M. Marchak, 667 F. App'x 616 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Raymond Alford ¿radford appeals pro se from the *617 district court’s judgment denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We review denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis for abuse of discretion. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We reverse and remand.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner cannot proceed in forma pauperis “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Bradford is subject to § 1915(g) because at least three of Bradford’s prior § 1983 cases were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim.

To fall under the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g), Bradford need only make a “plausible allegation” of “imminent danger.” Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055. Because “the limited office of § 1915(g) in determining whether a prisoner can proceed in forma pauperis counsels against an overly detailed inquiry into the allegations that qualify for the exception,” Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1189-90 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055), Bradford plausibly alleged “imminent danger of serious physical injury” given his allegations of chest pain, dizziness, blurred vision and headaches from ongoing involuntary psychotropic medication. On remand, the district court is encouraged to consider appointing pro bono counsel.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Raymond Alford ¿radford appeals pro se from the *617 district court’s judgment denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We review denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis for abuse of discretion. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We reverse and remand.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner cannot proceed in forma pauperis “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Bradford is subject to § 1915(g) because at least three of Bradford’s prior § 1983 cases were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim.

To fall under the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g), Bradford need only make a “plausible allegation” of “imminent danger.” Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055. Because “the limited office of § 1915(g) in determining whether a prisoner can proceed in forma pauperis counsels against an overly detailed inquiry into the allegations that qualify for the exception,” Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1189-90 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055), Bradford plausibly alleged “imminent danger of serious physical injury” given his allegations of chest pain, dizziness, blurred vision and headaches from ongoing involuntary psychotropic medication. On remand, the district court is encouraged to consider appointing pro bono counsel.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 F. App'x 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-bradford-v-m-marchak-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack