Rodney Womack v. L. Sullivan , 594 F. App'x 402 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, No. 14-15410
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00085-WBS-
EFB
v.
L. SULLIVAN; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Rodney Jerome Womack, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference and retaliation. The district court dismissed for failure to pay a filing
fee, after it denied Womack in forma pauperis status on the grounds that he had
*
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).
“three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of section
1915(g) and related legal conclusions, Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th
Cir. 2005), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Womack leave to
proceed in forma pauperis because it correctly determined that Womack had filed
at least three actions that had been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a
claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.
2005) (explaining the meaning of “frivolous” and “failure to state a claim” under
§ 1915(g)). Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Womack’s action for
failure to pay the requisite filing fee.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-15410