Case ID: f-appx_694/html/0508-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Melinda Gabriella VALENZUELA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IBRAHIM, Unknown; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-16051
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017 
    
    Filed July 18, 2017
    
      Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela, Pro Se
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriffs 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.