Opinion
20-55216
09-20-2021
RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. VOONG, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Director of Office of Appeal; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of No. 3:17-cv-02053-BAS-AHG California Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 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.