Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00047/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00047-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. USHER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00047-KES-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO REQUIRE THAT PLAINTIFF PAY 

FILING FEE IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH 

THIS ACTION

Doc. 4

Plaintiff Raymond Bradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On January 10, 2024, plaintiff filed his initial complaint. Doc. 1. On January 11, 2024, 

the assigned magistrate issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff be 

required to pay the filing fee to proceed with this action. Doc. 4. Specifically, the findings and 

recommendations find that plaintiff has at least three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that 

the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint do not satisfy section 1915(g)’s imminent danger 

exception. Id. at 7. Plaintiff timely filed objections on January 22, 2024. Doc. 5.

Plaintiff’s objections first request that the Court take judicial notice of several documents: 

two letters from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) responding to plaintiff’s inquiries in 2021 

and 2023, and an excerpt from plaintiff’s medical grievance from 2021. Id. at 2–7. Plaintiff 

Case 1:24-cv-00047-KES-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/15/25 Page 1 of 3
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

argues that the IRS letters show that his economic impact payments were “stolen by the guards”

to prevent him from using these funds to pay the filing fees and that the medical grievance shows

he suffers from Valley fever and other serious medial ailments. Id. at 2.

The Court may take judicial notice of a fact that “is not subject to reasonable dispute 

because it (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be 

accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201. Although a court “may take judicial notice of a record of a state 

agency not subject to reasonable dispute,” City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1223 n.2 

(9th Cir. 2004), and it may “take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record,” it may 

not, however, take judicial notice of reasonably disputed facts simply because they are “stated in 

[a] public record[ ].” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689–90 (9th Cir. 2001).

The unauthenticated IRS letters and an excerpt from plaintiff’s medical record are not 

“sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned” and do not meet Rule 201 criteria for 

taking judicial notice. Even if the Court were to consider them as records of a federal or state 

agency, the facts that plaintiff seeks to establish through judicial notice of these documents are 

not ones that are “generally known,” and they are not ones that “can be accurately and readily 

determined” from the documents. Nothing in the IRS letters suggests that plaintiff’s tax rebates 

were “stolen by the guards . . . to prevent him from using his (IRS) funds to pay the filing fees.”

Doc. 5 at 2. Similarly, nothing in the medical grievance from 2021 suggests that plaintiff is 

currently in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Id. at 3. Accordingly, the Court declines 

to take judicial notice of the documents proffered by plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s objections also assert that he meets the imminent danger exception because he 

suffers from disseminated coccidioidomycosis (Valley fever) and suffers daily due to denial of 

treatment, chest pain, weight loss, and pneumonia in his lungs. Id. at 1. As the findings and 

recommendations correctly note, the relevant inquiry is whether plaintiff faced imminent danger 

at the time that he filed his complaint. See Doc. 4 at 5 (citing Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 

1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007)). “The [imminent danger] exception's use of the present tense, 

combined with its concern only with the initial act of ‘bring[ing]’ the lawsuit, indicates to us that 

Case 1:24-cv-00047-KES-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/15/25 Page 2 of 3
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

the exception applies if the danger existed at the time the prisoner filed the complaint.” Andrews, 

493 F.3d at 1053. In the instant case, the unlawful conduct alleged concerns denial of treatment

from September 2015 to August 2017, while plaintiff was incarcerated at Kern Valley State 

Prison. Doc. 1 at 1–3. At the time the initial complaint was filed, however, plaintiff was housed 

at a different location, at California State Prison, Sacramento. Id. at 1. Nothing in plaintiff’s 

complaint alleged misconduct at his current location of incarceration. See Doc. 1. Accordingly, 

plaintiff does not satisfy the nexus requirement between the alleged imminent danger and the 

stated claims, and therefore does not qualify for the § 1915(g) imminent danger exception.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, plaintiff is required to pay the filing fee in full 

before proceeding any further with this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 11, 2024, Doc. 4, are 

ADOPTED in full;

2. Plaintiff SHALL pay the $405.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days if he wishes to 

proceed with his action; and, 

3. Failure to pay the required filing fee will result in the dismissal of this action without 

further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2025 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00047-KES-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/15/25 Page 3 of 3