Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01689/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01689-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond Alford Bradford
Plaintiff
L. Clausell
Defendant
J. Depovic
Defendant
S. Grewal
Defendant
M. Marchak
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. MARCHAK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01689-LJO-BAM-PC

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(ECF NO. 2)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter 

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 302. 

This action proceeds on the October 29, 2014, complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the 

custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at CSP 

Corcoran, brings this action against Defendants M Marchak, S. Grewal, L. Clausell, and J. 

Depovic, employees of the CDCR at CSP Corcoran. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants subjected 

him to involuntary psychiatric medication in violation of the Eighth Amendment and the Due 

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On November 5, 2014, an order was entered, 

denying Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), on the 

Case 1:14-cv-01689-LJO-BAM Document 12 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 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

2

ground that Plaintiff failed to allege facts that satisfy the imminent danger standard of § 1915(g). 

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 1997). (ECF No. 2.) On June 27, 2016, 

an order was entered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing the dismissal entered on 

November 5, 2014.1 The Ninth Circuit held that Plaintiff plausibly alleges imminent danger of 

serious physical injury, given the allegations in the complaint. Plaintiff should therefore be 

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has not, however, filed an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), Plaintiff must submit an 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff s an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis by a state prisoner; and

2. Plaintiff shall, within thirty days of the date of service of this order, complete and 

return the application to proceed in forma pauperis to the Court. Plaintiff’s failure to 

do so will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute and to obey a Court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 The formal mandate was filed in this Court on September 7, 2016. (ECF No. 11.)

Case 1:14-cv-01689-LJO-BAM Document 12 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 2