Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00637/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00637-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond Alford Bradford
Plaintiff
P. Safy
Defendant

Document Text:

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-0637-TLN-EFB P

ORDER AND 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 at 2. But the court also found that plaintiff’s allegations

qualified for the imminent danger exception to the three strikes bar because of 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 has since filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 18), which the court 

must screen, and a motion entitled “Motion for Emergency Relief . . .” (ECF No. 20). For the 

reasons stated below, the amended complaint is largely convoluted and packed with numerous 

unexplained claims having nothing to do with the original allegation of an imminent danger. The 

amended complaint fails to state a claim and must be dismissed. Likewise, the motion must be 

denied. 

Case 2:21-cv-00637-TLN-EFB Document 21 Filed 03/01/22 Page 1 of 6
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

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 a threshold matter, “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. While plaintiff purports to bring just

three causes of action, the headings for those “three” causes of action reveal that plaintiff intends 

to assert far more. They read as follows: (1) “Deliberate Indifference/ Malpractice/Gross 

Negligence 9(b) Fraud violation/Personal Injury/Cruel & Unusual Punishment/ Atypical & 

Significant Hardship Prison Life 14th Due Process/Equal Protection/Discrimination Rico 

Act/Rehabilitation Act/ADA Violation 14th Amendment/Supervisory Liability/Retaliation” (ECF 

No. 18 at 5-6); (2) “Access to Court/Supervisory Liability/Cruel & Unusual Punishment/ Fraud 

Case 2:21-cv-00637-TLN-EFB Document 21 Filed 03/01/22 Page 2 of 6
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

9(b) violation/Personal Injury/Negligence Atypical & Significant hardship prison life/14th 

Amendment Due Process/Rico Act/Retaliation” (id. at 6); and (3) “Access to court/Supervisory 

Liability/Cruel & Unusual Punishment/Fraud 9(b) violation/Personal injury/Negligence/Atypical 

& significant hardship on prison life/Retaliation/14th Amendment Due Process Rehabilitation 

Act/Rico Act/Heck Rule” (id. at 7). As evidenced by these convoluted headings alone, plaintiff 

alleges numerous claims bearing no plausible relation to the allegation of imminent danger 

previously identified by the court. 

Apart from asserting claims that do not involve any physical injury or threat of physical 

injury, the amended complaint fails to comply with Rule 8. The complaint is sixteen pages of 

dense handwriting that is unduly burdensome for the court to parse. The court cannot determine 

which claims plaintiff intends to assert against which defendants, or whether all of the claims 

asserted could be properly joined in a single action.1 The difficulty in understanding the specifics 

of plaintiff’s allegations and how, if at all, each defendant was directly responsible for any 

violation of plaintiff’s rights, convinces the court that the complaint does not put defendants on 

notice of the claims against them. See McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) 

(holding that a sufficiently plead complaint under Rule 8 must “put defendants fairly on notice of 

the claims against them.”). 

Based on the foregoing, the amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 

/////

/////

1 The court previously warned plaintiff against bringing multiple unrelated claims against 

more than one defendant. See ECF No. 15 at 4. It is well settled that a claimant may not proceed 

with various unrelated claims against separate defendants:

“The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party 

asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross- claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as 

alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the 

party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a 

single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be 

joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.”

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Case 2:21-cv-00637-TLN-EFB Document 21 Filed 03/01/22 Page 3 of 6
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

Leave to Amend

Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended complaint that addresses these 

deficiencies. That is, plaintiff must only assert claims relating 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. Further, each of his claims must be clearly stated and supported with facts showing 

how a particular defendant caused him harm. Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or 

factual background which has no bearing on his claims. He should carefully consider whether 

each of the defendants he names actually had involvement in the violations he alleges. A 

“scattershot” approach in which plaintiff names dozens of defendants or lists dozens of 

unsupported claims for relief will not be looked upon favorably by the court.2 If plaintiff chooses 

to amend, he should limit his pleading to ten pages, plus any relevant exhibits. Failure to do so 

may result in either the dismissal of this case. 

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Nor may he bring unrelated claims against 

multiple defendants. Id. 

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Relief

Plaintiff’s motion for emergency relief (ECF No. 20) seeks the appointment of counsel, 

the appointment of a guardian ad litem, and injunctive relief. Each of these requests must be 

denied.

Pursuant to Rule 17(c)(2) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, courts are required to 

“appoint a guardian ad litem--or issue another appropriate order--to protect . . . [an] incompetent 

person who is unrepresented in an action.” Without counsel, however, a plaintiff may not 

2 Plaintiff is again cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant 

only persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his 

constitutional rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects 

another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or 

omits to perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 

Case 2:21-cv-00637-TLN-EFB Document 21 Filed 03/01/22 Page 4 of 6
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

5

proceed through a guardian ad litem. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F. 3d 874, 877 (9th 

Cir. 1997) (“It goes without saying that it is not in the interest of minors or incompetents that they 

be represented by non-attorneys.”). District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent 

indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 

(1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to 

represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

(9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When 

determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of 

success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of 

the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this 

case. Because the court is unwilling to appoint counsel, no guardian ad litem may be appointed in 

this case.

Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief. However, he fails to meet the minimum threshold for 

merit to satisfy the standard for such relief.3 At an irreducible minimum, he must demonstrate 

that there is at least a fair chance of success on the merits in this action. Johnson v. California 

State Board of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995); Sports Form, Inc. v. 

United Press International, 686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 1982). As discussed above, his complaint 

3 A temporary restraining order may be issued upon a showing “that immediate and 

irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard 

in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The purpose of such an order is to preserve the status 

quo and to prevent irreparable harm “just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no 

longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). “The 

standards for granting a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are identical.”

Haw. County Green Party v. Clinton, 980 F. Supp. 1160, 1164 (D. Haw. 1997); cf. Stuhlbarg Int’l 

Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (observing that an 

analysis of a preliminary injunction is “substantially identical” to an analysis of a temporary 

restraining order). A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a far reaching power not to 

be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 

141, 143 (9th Cir.1964). The moving party must prove that he is likely to succeed on the merits, 

that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of 

equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 

586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir.2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 55 U.S. 7

129 S.Ct. 365, 375–76, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008)).

Case 2:21-cv-00637-TLN-EFB Document 21 Filed 03/01/22 Page 5 of 6
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

6

must be dismissed, and thus, he has shown no likelihood of success on the merits of any claim. 

Accordingly, the motion must be denied.

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 18) is dismissed with leave to amend within 

30 days of service of this order; 

2. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel and a guardian ad litem (ECF No. 

20) is denied without prejudice; and

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action for the reasons 

stated herein.

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 

20) be denied. 

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 

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: March 1, 2022.

Case 2:21-cv-00637-TLN-EFB Document 21 Filed 03/01/22 Page 6 of 6