Antoine Leblanc v. Debbie Asuncion ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 30 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ANTOINE LeBLANC,                                No. 17-55103
    Plaintiff-Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:16-cv-07522-JLS-AFM
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    DEBBIE ASUNCION, Warden, in
    individual and official capacity; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted October 23, 2017**
    Before:      LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    Antoine LeBlanc, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
    court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after denying his application
    to proceed in forma pauperis status (“IFP”) on the ground that LeBlanc has “three
    strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
    *
    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).
    We review de novo the interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
    Richey v. Dahne, 
    807 F.3d 1202
    , 1206 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
    The district court properly denied LeBlanc’s request to proceed in forma
    pauperis because at least three of LeBlanc’s prior cases qualified as “strikes” under
    28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Knapp v. Hogan, 
    738 F.3d 1106
    , 1109 (9th Cir. 2013)
    (defining when a case is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim, and can be
    considered a strike); see also Cato v. United States, 
    70 F.3d 1103
    , 1105 n.2 (9th
    Cir. 1995) (noting that it was not an abuse of discretion to dismiss a duplicative
    complaint as frivolous or malicious under an earlier version of 28 U.S.C. § 1915).
    Because we affirm on the ground that the district court properly concluded
    LeBlanc had at least three strikes, we treat the dismissal of the action as being
    without prejudice. See Tierney v. Kupers, 
    128 F.3d 1310
    , 1311 (9th Cir. 2008)
    (affirming district court’s dismissal of case without prejudice where prisoner had
    accumulated three strikes).
    In light of our disposition, we do not consider the district court’s order on
    the merits of LeBlanc’s claims.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    17-55103
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-55103

Judges: Leavy, Watford, Friedland

Filed Date: 10/30/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024