Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0969-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David Wayne WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K. LASSITER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-16129
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 04, 2016
    David Wayne Wilson, Pro Se
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner David Wayne Wilson 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 the district court denied him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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), Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007), and for an abuse of discretion its denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wilson’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because at least three of Wilson’s prior 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions were dismissed for failure to state a claim, and Wilson did not plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time that he lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also 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 injury1 at the time of filing”).

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