Gregory Bontemps v. Sirko ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY C. BONTEMPS, No. 16-56152
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03550-JFW-SP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SIRKO, Correctional Officer,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Gregory C. Bontemps, 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
Bontemps has “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s
Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Bontemps’ request to proceed IFP because
at least three of Bontemps’ prior cases qualified as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, and Bontemps did not allege facts demonstrating that he faced imminent
danger at the time he filed his complaint. 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 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and can be considered a strike); Andrews v.
Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055-57 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing imminent danger
exception).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-56152