Case ID: f-appx_594/html/0402-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rodney Jerome WOMACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. SULLIVAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-15410.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
    
    Filed Feb. 26, 2015.
    Rodney Jerome Womack, Susanville, CA, pro se.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rodney Jerome Womack, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference and retaliation. The district court dismissed for failure to pay a filing fee, after it denied Womack in forma pauperis status on the grounds that he had “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of section 1915(g) and related legal conclusions, Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Womack leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it correctly determined that Womack had filed at least three actions that had been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.2005) (explaining the meaning of “frivolous” and “failure to state a claim” under § 1915(g)). Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Womack’s action for failure to pay the requisite filing fee.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.