Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01910/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01910-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PRISON LAW OFFICE, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 19-cv-01910-PJH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 5, 7 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Plaintiff was informed that he must pay the filing fee or submit an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee or submit an 

IFP application. Plaintiff has instead submitted multiple filings seeking to proceed 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) arguing that he is under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury. Section 1915(g) is for plaintiffs who have three or more strikes and are 

unable to pay the filing fee. It is not clear if plaintiff can pay the filing fee or not as he has 

failed to submit the appropriate paperwork demonstrating that he is indigent. For these 

reasons the case is dismissed for his failure to comply with court orders and submit an 

IFP application. 

Because plaintiff states he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury, the 

court has reviewed the underlying complaint and this case should be dismissed with 

prejudice. The only defendants in this case are a law firm. Plaintiff alleges that 

defendants failed to provide the services that they agreed to provide. To state a claim 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right 

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 

Case 4:19-cv-01910-PJH Document 11 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West 

v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). The law firm was not acting under color of state law; 

therefore, plaintiff cannot bring a claim under § 1983 against them. He should proceed in 

state court with his state law claims. To the extent that plaintiff states he is under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury, he describes incidents that occurred in 

prisons in other districts and he is currently incarcerated in the Eastern District of 

California. If he wishes to file actions against state actors, he must file those cases in the 

districts where the constitutional violations occurred. Because he has not described any 

incidents that occurred in this district, the case is dismissed. 

CONCLUSION 

1. Plaintiff’s motions to proceed under § 1915(g) (Docket Nos. 5, 7) are DENIED

because plaintiff has failed to submit an IFP application and demonstrate that he is 

indigent. 

2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice because plaintiff has failed to present 

a § 1983 claim. Plaintiff should proceed in state court with his state law claims. 

3. The clerks shall close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 3, 2019 

 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:19-cv-01910-PJH Document 11 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 2