Lance Williams v. Steven Garcia , 696 F. App'x 238 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        AUG 17 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    LANCE WILLIAMS,                                 No. 16-56854
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:16-cv-06744-PA-KK
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    STEVEN GARCIA, Parole Officer
    Individually and in his Official Capacity; et
    al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 9, 2017**
    Before:      SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Lance Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
    court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee
    after denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have
    *
    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).
    jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.
    O’Loughlin v. Doe, 
    920 F.2d 614
    , 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We may affirm on any
    ground supported by the record. 
    Id. at 617.
    We affirm.
    The district court properly denied Williams’ motion to proceed IFP because
    at the time Williams filed the complaint, he had filed three actions that qualified as
    “strikes,” and he did not plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of
    serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. See 28 U.S.C.
    § 1915(g); Coleman v. Tollefson, 
    135 S. Ct. 1759
    , 1763 (2015) (“[P]rior dismissal
    on a statutorily enumerated ground counts as a strike even if the dismissal is the
    subject of an appeal.”); Belanus v. Clark, 
    796 F.3d 1021
    , 1030 (9th Cir. 2015)
    (dismissal for failure to state a claim because claims were time barred properly
    counted as a strike); Andrews v. Cervantes, 
    493 F.3d 1047
    , 1053 (9th Cir. 2007)
    (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    16-56854
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-56854

Citation Numbers: 696 F. App'x 238

Judges: Schroeder, Tashima, Smith

Filed Date: 8/17/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024