Case ID: f-appx_436/html/0810-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Terrence BROWNLEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. SWINGLE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-15705.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 8, 2011.
    Terrence Brownlee, Susanville, CA, pro se.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Terrence Brownlee, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, under the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs and disability discrimination. 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, 617 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Brownlee’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because Brownlee does not contest that he is a three-strikes filer, and he failed to show that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (explaining that the exception to the three-strikes rule applies only “if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing”).

Brownlee’s “Request that this Court Take Judicial Intervention” is denied.

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