Case ID: f-appx_695/html/0298-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gregory MCCLELLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. LOZANO, Parole Agent—CDCR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15149
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 15, 2017
    Gregory McClellan, Pro Se
    Jaime Ganson, Deputy Attorney General, Krista Leigh Pollard, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee S. Lozano
    Heather Sharon Cohen, Attorney, Michael George Marderosian, Attorney, Marderosian, Cercone & Cohen, Fresno, CA, Virginia Anne Gennaro, Esquire, Chief Counsel, City Attorney, City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield, CA, for Defendants--Appellees Louis Wood, Kenneth Perkins
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gregory McClellan appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s January 15, 2016 order denying McClellan in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction 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 magistrate judge properly denied IFP status because at the time McClellan brought this action, McClellan was a prisoner and had accumulated three strikes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1154 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Because § 1915(g) .., does not distinguish between dismissals with and without prejudice, ... a dismissal without prejudice may count as a strike.” (citation omitted)).

Defendants’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 25) is denied.

Defendants’ motions to strike evidence attached to the reply brief (Docket Entry Nos. 31 and 32) are granted.

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