Gregory Bontemps v. C Smith

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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. 17-55074
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-08226-JFW-SP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
C SMITH, Sergeant; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
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).
Bontemps’ motion seeking appointment of counsel, attached to his opening
brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-55074