NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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 Ҥ 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