Victor Tagle v. Cca

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 26 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR MANUEL TAGLE, AKA Victor No. 19-16287
Tagle, AKA Victor Manuel Tagle-Moreno,
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-04324-DLR-
Plaintiff-Appellant, MHB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 25, 2020**
San Francisco, California
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Victor Manuel Tagle appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the
filing fee after denying Tagle’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We
*
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).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s
interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Andrews v. Cervantes, 493
F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
The district court properly denied Tagle’s motion to proceed IFP because
Tagle had filed at least three prior actions in federal court that were dismissed for
being frivolous or malicious, or for failing to state a claim, and failed to plausibly
allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time
that he lodged the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055(an exception to the three-strikes rule exists only where “the complaint makes a
plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical
injury’ at the time of filing”).
AFFIRMED.
2 19-16287