Raymond Alford Bradford v. M. VOONG, California Department of Corrections

20-55216Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit20.09.2021

Gesamter Gesetzestext

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
M. VOONG, California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, Director of
Office of Appeal; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-55216
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-02053-BAS-AHG
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
SEP 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-55216
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 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.