FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, No. 11-17176
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00990-AWI-
SKO
v.
I. VELLA-LOPEZ, 4A Law Library MEMORANDUM *
Officer at CSP-Corcoran; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012 **
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Alford Bradford, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
medical treatment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo the district court’s interpretation and application of 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 improperly denied Bradford’s request to proceed in forma
pauperis because Bradford made plausible allegations that he was “under imminent
danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint, including
that defendants continued to deny him adequate treatment for his blood clotting
disorder. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception
to the three-strikes rule exists “if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that
the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of
filing”).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
2 11-17176