Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00637/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00637-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

P. SAFY, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:21-cv-00637-TLN-EFB (PC) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action 

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court previously concluded in its order granting plaintiff 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis that plaintiff is a “three strikes” litigant within the meaning of 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ECF No. 15. But the court also found that plaintiff’s allegations satisfied 

for the imminent danger exception to the three strikes bar based on his claim that he had been 

denied medical care for severe injuries and illnesses because of his refusal to be tested for 

COVID-19. Id. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, ECF No. 18, and on screening, the court 

concluded that the amended complaint must be dismissed as “largely convoluted and packed with 

numerous unexplained claims having nothing to do with the original allegation of an imminent 

danger.” ECF No. 21. 

Plaintiff has now filed a second amended complaint which is screened below. As 

discussed herein, the court again finds that plaintiff has stated a potentially cognizable claim 

Case 2:21-cv-00637-TLN-EFB Document 31 Filed 11/12/24 Page 1 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

regarding denial of medical treatment. But he has also included a claim that is barred by 

plaintiff’s “three strikes” status. Accordingly, the court will recommend that this barred claim be 

dismissed without leave to amend and the case proceed on plaintiff’s medical claim. 

Screening Standards 

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

Screening Order 

 As the court has previously informed plaintiff, “the complaint of a three-strikes litigant 

must reveal a nexus between the imminent danger it alleges and the claims it asserts . . . .” Stine 

v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 1:13-CV-1883 AWI MJS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120153 at *8 

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2015) (quoting Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 298-99 (2d Cir. 2009)). 

That is, plaintiff’s claims must relate to his allegation that he has been denied medical care for 

severe injuries and illnesses because of his refusal to be tested for COVID-19. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Carson and Safy, staff at California Healthcare Facility – 

Stockton, denied him necessary treatment for various serious health conditions because plaintiff 

refused to be tested for COVID-19. ECF No. 30 at 2. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant 

Case 2:21-cv-00637-TLN-EFB Document 31 Filed 11/12/24 Page 2 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

Spangler, a staff member at California State Prison – Sacramento, has stolen various items of 

legal and other property from plaintiff. Id. 

To succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim predicated on indifference to medical needs, a 

plaintiff must establish that: (1) he had a serious medical need and (2) the defendant’s response to 

that need was deliberately indifferent. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); see 

also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A serious medical need exists if the failure to 

treat the condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton 

infliction of pain. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official 

must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of 

serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 

(1994). 

Liberally construed, and for the purposes of § 1915A screening only, plaintiff has stated a 

potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Larson and Safy. Plaintiff’s 

claim against Spangler of stealing property does not relate to plaintiff’s imminent danger claim, 

nor does it present facts that themselves show an imminent danger. Thus, it must be dismissed. 

As plaintiff has had many opportunities to amend the complaint and has been informed that the 

court will not accept claims unrelated to the imminent danger claim, the court finds that the claim 

against Spangler should be dismissed without further leave to amend. 

Conclusion 

 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendant J. Spangler 

(alleging that Spangler stole various items of plaintiff’s property) be DISMISSED, without leave 

to amend, and the case proceed solely on plaintiff’s claim that defendants Larson and Safy denied 

him necessary medical treatment due to his refusal to receive a COVID-19 test. Should the 

district judge adopt this recommendation, the court will direct service of the second amended 

complaint. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

Case 2:21-cv-00637-TLN-EFB Document 31 Filed 11/12/24 Page 3 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: November 12, 2024 

Case 2:21-cv-00637-TLN-EFB Document 31 Filed 11/12/24 Page 4 of 4