NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, No. 16-15899
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01918-AWI-
DLB
v.
C. OGBUEHI and NIETAS, MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Raymond Alford Bradford appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to Bradford’s ulcerative colitis and
celiac disease. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
*
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).
the district court’s interpretation and application of the “three-strikes” rule of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Andrews v. Cervantes, 493
F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007), and for an abuse of discretion its denial of leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.
1990). We reverse and remand.
The district court abused its discretion in denying Bradford leave to proceed
in forma pauperis because Bradford plausibly alleged that he was “under imminent
danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1056-57 (discussing the imminent
danger exception to § 1915(g)); see also Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182,
1189-90 (9th Cir. 2015) (court should liberally construe prisoner’s “facial
allegations” and determine if the complaint “makes a plausible allegation” of
imminent danger).
We do not consider facts or documents not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts
not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
2 16-15899