Case ID: f-appx_704/html/0717-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Paul ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, J. Beard, Secretary, in his/her individual and official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-56224
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 30, 2017
    Paul Adams, Pro Se
    Cassandra Jean Shryock, Esquire, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paul Adams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action following an order revoking his in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 n.6 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly revoked Adams’s IFP status because at the time Adams filed the complaint, he had filed three actions that qualified as “strikes,” and he did not plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Adams’s contention that he is entitled to default judgment.

We reject as without merit Adams’s contentions concerning fraud, leave to amend, and judicial bias.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.