Melinda Valenzuela v. Ibrahim , 694 F. App'x 508 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MELINDA GABRIELLA VALENZUELA, No. 16-16051
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00683-NVW-
MHB
v.
IBRAHIM, Unknown; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action following an
order denying her application for leave 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), Washington v. L.A. Cty.
Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016), and for an abuse of discretion
its denial of leave to proceed IFP, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.
1990). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Valenzuela leave to
proceed IFP because Valenzuela failed to plausibly allege that she was “under
imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time she lodged the complaint.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1054-57 (9th Cir.
2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-16051