Case ID: f-appx_696/html/0271-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lance WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven GARCIA, Parole Officer Individually and in his Official Capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-56854
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 17, 2017
    Lance Williams, Pro Se
    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

Lanee Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Id. at 617. We affirm.

The district court properly denied Williams’ motion to proceed IFP because at the time Williams 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Coleman v. Tollefson, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015) (“[Pjrior dismissal on a statutorily enumerated ground counts as a strike even if the dismissal is the subject of an appeal.”); Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissal for failure to state a claim because claims were time barred properly counted as a strike); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).

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