NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 20 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, No. 20-55216

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-02053-BAS-AHG v.

MEMORANDUM* M. VOONG, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Director of Office of Appeal; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 14, 2021** Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Raymond Alford Bradford appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). affirm.

Contrary to Bradford’s contention, the determination that Bradford has satisfied the “imminent danger” exception under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) does not imply that the action itself has merit. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that “§ 1915(g) concerns only a threshold procedural question—whether a filing fee must be paid upfront or later” and that “§ 1915(g) is not a vehicle for determining the merits of a claim” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Bradford’s contentions that the district court encouraged defendants to file motions to dismiss and improperly screened his complaints.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 20-55216