Case ID: f-appx_708/html/0372-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David B. TURNER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-55446
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 26, 2017
    David B. Turner, Jr., Pro Se
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P, 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David B. Turner, Jr., a former prisoner, 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 denying Turner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) while he was in jail. 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). Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Turner’s motion to proceed IFP because at the time Turner filed the complaint, Turner had filed three actions or appeals that qualified as “strikes,” and Turner did not plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint or the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Harris, 863 F.3d, at 1143 (“[W]hen (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint, the dismissal' counts as a strike under § 1915(g).”); Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2015) (appellate court’s denial of IFP because the appeal is frivolous counts as a “strike” even though the court does not dismiss the appeal until later, after appellant fails to pay the filing fee).

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