Ian Cormier v. Jacqueline Cooper ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAY 31 2022
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    IAN LAMONTE CORMIER,                             No. 20-56184
    Plaintiff-Appellant,             D.C. No. 5:20-cv-01722-SVW-AFM
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    JACQUELINE LEE COOPER, individual
    and official capacity; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 17, 2022**
    Before:      CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    Ian LaMonte Cormier appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing his action alleging various claims for failure to pay the filing fee after
    denying Cormier’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo the district court’s
    *
    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).
    interpretation and application of 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g). Andrews v. Cervantes, 
    493 F.3d 1047
    , 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
    The district court properly denied Cormier’s motion to proceed IFP because
    Cormier had filed at least three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous,
    malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and Cormier 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); Andrews, 
    493 F.3d at 1053, 1055-56
    (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
    v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    Cormier’s request to submit the case for decision without oral argument
    (Docket Entry No. 6) is granted. All other pending motions are denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    20-56184
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-56184

Filed Date: 5/31/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/31/2022