1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, Case No. 21-cv-01165-PJH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 3 10 T. LEMON, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under

1983 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to

. The 15 court ordered plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed under 28

(g), which provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma 17 pauperis under

“if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while 18 incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the 19 United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 20 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent 21 danger of serious physical injury.”

(g). The plain language of the 22 imminent danger clause in § 1915(g) indicates that "imminent danger" is to be assessed 23 at the time of filing of the complaint. See Andrews v. Cervantes,

, 1053 24 (9th Cir. 2007) The order identified four prior dismissals that appeared to count under 25 § 1915(g) and ordered plaintiff to show cause why pauper status should not be denied, 26 and the action should not be dismissed. The order further stated that plaintiff also could 27 avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee by the deadline. 1 Plaintiff has filed a response and does not contest that he has at least three strikes 2 pursuant to § 1915(g). Instead plaintiff argues that he was under imminent danger of 3 serious physical injury. Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that defendants are tampering 4 with his mail to prevent him from filing cases with the court and he was denied legal 5 supplies such as paper, pens and envelopes. He also states a light was out in his cell 6 and he began to suffer blurry visions due to writing in the dark. With respect to being in 7 imminent danger of serious injury, plaintiff contends that various prison officials at 8 multiple prisons are conspiring to have him murdered and are tampering with his mail to 9 prevent him from filing cases with the court. He says he has been assaulted at numerous 10 prisons in the last few years by guards and most recently on March 12, 2021. 11 With respect to interference with access to the courts, the court notes that in the 12 last four years plaintiff has filed and litigated nine cases in this court, eleven cases in the 13 Eastern District of California, eight cases in the Central District of California and seven 14 cases in the Southern District of California. It appears that plaintiff can adequately 15 access the courts. While plaintiff’s allegations of an assault by guards on March 12, 16 2021, is troubling, plaintiff has repeatedly presented the same allegations of assaults by 17 guards and a conspiracy to murder him for the last several years. See, e.g., Braford v. 18 Prison Law Office, Case No. 19-cv-1910 PJH (N.D. Cal.); Bradford v. Peralta, Case No. 19 19-1222 CAB BGS (S.D. Cal.); Bradford v. E. Jordan, Case No. 18-cv-2099 CMK (E.D. 20 Cal.). In light of the similar general and conclusory allegations for many years, the court 21 finds that plaintiff has failed to plausibly show that he was under imminent danger of 22 serious injury when he filed this case. In addition, plaintiff filed this case on February 17, 23 2021, while at Salinas Valley State Prison and has since been transferred to the 24 California Health Care Facility. Plaintiff’s allegations of an assault by certain guards 25 occurred nearly a month after he filed this case and perhaps at a different prison. 26 Each of the four earlier dismissals identified in the order to show cause counts as 27 a dismissal for § 1915(g) purposes. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, has not shown 1 that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed this 2 action, and has not otherwise shown cause why this action could not be dismissed. For 3 the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's in forma pauperis application (Docket No. 3) is DENIED. 4 This action is DISMISSED for failure to pay the filing fee. The dismissal is without 5 prejudice to plaintiff asserting his claims in a new complaint for which he pays the full 6 filing fee at the time he files that action. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: May 4, 2021 9 10 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27