Case Name: Raymond Alford BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. CASTANO; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-17
Citations: 564 F. App'x 285
Docket Number: No. 13-16258
Parties: Raymond Alford BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. CASTANO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 564
Pages: 285–286

Head Matter:
Raymond Alford BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. CASTANO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-16258.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2014.
Filed March 17, 2014.
Raymond Alford Bradford, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Raymond Alford Bradford appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir.2007), and for an abuse of discretion a denial of leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis because at least three of Bradford's prior § 1983 cases were dismissed on the basis that they were frivolous or failed to state a claim, and Bradford did not provide sufficient allegations to show that he was "under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (explaining that the exception to the three-strikes rule applies only "if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced 'imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of filing").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.