Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01918/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01918-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. OGBUEHI, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-01918 AWI DLB PC

ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS, (2) DISMISSING ACTION, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. ' 1915(G), AND (3) DIRECTING 

CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER 

JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 3 and 4)

Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford, # H-16258, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 28, 2015. On January 22, 2016, 

he filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that “[i]n no event shall a 

prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section 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.”1Since Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff must demonstrate that 

 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of case numbers 2:98-cv-00180-FCD-JFM PC, Bradford v. White (E.D. Cal.) 

(dismissed 06/03/1999 as time barred); 2:02-cv-01859-FCD-GGH PC, Bradford v. Terhune (E.D. Cal.)

(dismissed 06/18/2003 pursuant to section 1915(g) on a motion to dismiss); 1:04-cv-05496-AWI-DLB PC, Bradford 

v. Terhune (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed 10/21/2004 for failure to state a claim); 2:05-cv-00862-FCD-DAD PC, Bradford v. 

Case 1:15-cv-01918-AWI-BAM Document 6 Filed 03/04/16 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

he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed suit, and the allegations

must be plausible. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053-55 (9th Cir. 2007).

Plaintiff names as Defendants: C. Ogbuehi, M.D.; and Nietas, R.D. Plaintiff claims that he 

was diagnosed in 1993 with ulcerative colitis and celiac disease which causes him to suffer bloody 

diarrhea, stomach cramps, and weight loss on a daily basis. Plaintiff states that on August 5, 2015, 

dietician Nietas advised Plaintiff that he did not have ulcerative colitis or celiac disease and 

therefore no treatment was needed. He claims Nietas told him Defendant Ogbuehi ordered the 

special diet and nutritional supplements discontinued on August 21, 2015. He claims he continues 

to suffer from bloody diarrhea, stomach cramps, and weight loss daily.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met the imminent danger exception. Plaintiff’s 

assertion of imminent danger of serious physical injury is conclusory at best. Andrews, 493 F.3d 

at 1055. Plaintiff does not provide any factual allegations regarding the discontinuance of the 

special diet or nutritional supplements in support of his claim of imminent danger of serious 

physical injury. Plaintiff admits he has suffered from bloody diarrhea, stomach cramps and 

weight loss since 1993, and continues to do so today, regardless of his special diet and 

supplements. In fact, in a prior case in this district, case no. 1:13-cv-00045 BAM PC, Bradford v. 

Diaz,

2

Plaintiff attempted to bypass the requirements of § 1915(g) by claiming the discontinuation 

of his pain medications in 2011 was responsible for the very same ailments he claims the denial of 

his special diet and supplements caused in this case, specifically, “discomfort, severe stomach 

cramps, bloody diarrhea and weight loss.” Id. at *2. In that case, the Court found Plaintiff’s claim 

of imminent danger to be conclusory, unsupported, and implausible. Here as well, the Court does 

not find Plaintiff’s allegation of imminent danger of serious physical injury to be plausible or 

factually supported. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055. 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and his allegations do not satisfy the 

imminent danger exception to section 1915(g). Id., at 1055-56. Therefore, Plaintiff must pay the 

 

Grannis (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed 09/30/2005 for failure to state a claim and as frivolous); and 1:07-cv-01031-OWWLJO, Bradford v. Superior Court of California (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed 08/21/2007 as frivolous).

2 The Court takes judicial notice of Case No. 1:13-cv-00045 BAM PC, Bradford v. Diaz, (E.D. Cal. 2013) (dismissed 

for failure to pay filing fee pursuant to § 1915(g)).

Case 1:15-cv-01918-AWI-BAM Document 6 Filed 03/04/16 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

$400.00 filing fee if he wishes to litigate his claims. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action is DENIED;

2. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice to re-filing accompanied by the 

$400.00 filing fee; and

3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01918-AWI-BAM Document 6 Filed 03/04/16 Page 3 of 3