DocketNumber: 16-56888
Citation Numbers: 708 F. App'x 356
Judges: Wallace, Silverman, Bybee
Filed Date: 12/21/2017
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/6/2024
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GREGORY C. BONTEMPS, No. 16-56888 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-03171-JFW-SP v. MEMORANDUM* GODINA, Correctional Officer, California State Prison, in his/her individual capacity, 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 for failure to pay the filing fee after revoking his 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 revoked Bontemps’ IFP status 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); see also Harris v. Mangum,863 F.3d 1133
, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[W]hen (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint, the dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g).”). Bontemps’ motion seeking appointment of counsel, attached to his opening brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 16-56888