Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00637/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00637-4/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 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On May 19, 2021, the court recommended that this action be dismissed because 

plaintiff had failed to either pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF 

No. 9. On May 26, 2021, after plaintiff notified the court that he had attempted to file a request 

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court held in abeyance its findings and 

recommendations for thirty days to allow plaintiff more time to file his request with the court. 

ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has since timely filed a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

ECF No. 14. Accordingly, the May 19, 2021 findings and recommendations that recommended 

the dismissal of this action are vacated. 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

However, court records reflect that on at least three prior occasions, plaintiff has brought actions 

while incarcerated that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon 

Case 2:21-cv-00637-TLN-EFB Document 15 Filed 08/20/21 Page 1 of 5
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 

which relief may be granted, meaning that he is a three-strikes litigant for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). See (1) Bradford v. White, No. 2:98-cv-0180-FCD-JFM (E.D. Cal) (dismissed June 3, 

1999 as barred by the statute of limitations)1; (2) Bradford v. Terhune, No. 1:04-cv-5496-AWIDLB (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed October 21, 2004 for failure to prosecute after plaintiff failed to file 

an amended complaint after dismissal for failure to state a claim)2; (3) Bradford v. Grannis, No. 

2:05-cv-0862-FCD-DAD (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed September 30, 2005 as factually and legally 

frivolous and for failure to state a claim); and (4) Bradford v. Terhune, No. 1:04-cv-5261-LJOSMS (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed May 9, 2008 for failure to state a claim). 

An exception to the three-strikes rule exists “if the complaint makes a plausible allegation 

that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” 

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, plaintiff’s complaint satisfies 

the imminent danger exception. See ECF No. 1 (alleging he has been denied medical care for 

severe injuries and illnesses because of his refusal to be tested for COVID-19). Accordingly, 

plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. By separate order, the 

court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect and forward the appropriate 

monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (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 

1

 Allegations that are barred by the statute of limitations are subject to dismissal for failure 

to state a claim. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). Accordingly, this dismissal qualifies as 

a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

2

 The dismissal of this case, although styled as one for failure to prosecute, also qualifies 

as a strike. See O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008); see also, e.g., Lamon v. 

Junious, No. 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9778, at *9-10 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 

27, 2014) (dismissal of appeal for failure to prosecute counted as “strike” where underlying 

ground for dismissal was that appeal was frivolous); Thomas v. Beutler, No. 2:10-cv-01300 MCE 

CKD P, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159943, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2012) (same, and citing 

similar cases). 

Case 2:21-cv-00637-TLN-EFB Document 15 Filed 08/20/21 Page 2 of 5
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 

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). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Screening Order 

Plaintiff must amend his complaint to combine all of his allegations into a single 

document. He has filed a complaint (ECF No. 1) followed by a “supplemental complaint” that 

does not incorporate the original complaint. See ECF Nos. 1 & 13. Filing separate documents 

that are intended to be read together as a single complaint, however, is not the proper procedure 

for amending or supplementing a complaint. To add, omit, or correct information in the operative 

Case 2:21-cv-00637-TLN-EFB Document 15 Filed 08/20/21 Page 3 of 5
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 

complaint, plaintiff must file another complaint that is complete within itself. This is because an 

amended complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is 

filed, the earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. 

Humana, 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, 

the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th 

Cir. 1967)). Plaintiff’s complaint (and the intended supplement thereto) is dismissed with leave 

to amend in accordance with the requirements set forth in this order. 

Leave to Amend 

 Plaintiff is 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). 

 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

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

George, 507 F.3d at 607. Nor, as he was warned above, may he bring multiple, unrelated claims 

against more than one defendant. Id.

 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 

requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 

background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 

amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 

and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 

actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 

which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 

Conclusion 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

1. The May 19, 2021 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 9) are VACATED; 

Case 2:21-cv-00637-TLN-EFB Document 15 Filed 08/20/21 Page 4 of 5
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 

2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED; 

3. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 

in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed 

concurrently herewith; 

 4. Plaintiff’s complaint and “supplement” thereto (ECF Nos. 1 & 13) are 

DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 days from the date of service of this order; and 

 5. Failure to comply with any part of this this order may result in dismissal of this 

action. 

DATED: August 20, 2021. 

Case 2:21-cv-00637-TLN-EFB Document 15 Filed 08/20/21 Page 5 of 5