Case ID: f-appx_486/html/0643-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raymond Alford BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. I. VELLA-LOPEZ, 4A Law Library Officer at CSP-Corcoran; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-17176.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 16, 2012.
    Raymond Alford Bradford, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Raymond Alford Bradford, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his medical treatment. 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), and for an abuse of discretion its denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990). We reverse and remand.

The district court improperly denied Bradford’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because Bradford made plausible allegations that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint, including that defendants continued to deny him adequate treatment for his blood clotting disorder. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rule exists “if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of filing”).

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