T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T E N R I Q U E M E N D E Z , A K A M e l i nda G abri el l a V al enzuel a, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. AR I Z ON A D E P AR T ME NT OF C O R R E C T I O N S ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 17175 D . C . N o . 2 : 1 1 - c v - 0 1 2 9 3 - N V WMHB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona N e i l V . W a ke , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d June 26, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , H A W K IN S , an dG O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E nr i que M e nde z , a l s o know n a s M e l i ndaG abr i e l l aV a l e nz ue l a , a n A r i z ona s t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi m l e a ve



# FI LED JU L 11 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 17175 2 t o pr oc e e d i n f

orm apaupe r i s i n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng vi ol a t i ons of the E i gh th A m endm ent . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e r evi ew de no vo the di stri ctcourt ’ s i nt erpret at i on and app l i ca t i on of 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5(g), A ndre w s v . C ervantes , 493 F . 3d 1047, 1052 ( 9th C i r . 2007) , a nd f ora n abus e of d is c r e tio n its d e n ia l o f

le a v e to p r o c e e din f

o rm ap aup e r is , O ’

L oughl i n v . D oe , 920 F .2 d6 1 4 , 6 1 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . W e r e v e r s e a n dr e m a n d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e dits d is c r e tio n b yd e n y in g M e n d e z ’s r e q u e s t to proceed i n form a pauperi s bec ause , even tho ug h h e i s athree -s tri kes f i l er , M endez m ade pl ausi bl e a l l egat i on s thathe fa ce d an “ i m m i nentdang erof se ri ou s physi ca l in ju ry ,” in c lu d in g th a t ju s t w e e k s b e f o r e f ilin g th e c o m p la in t h e h a db e e n b ru ta lly b e a te n b yd e f

e n d a n t p r is o n o f

f ic ia ls a n dth e n th r e a te n e dw ith d e a th if h e s o u g h t to h o ldth e p e rp e tr a to r s liab le . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 ( g ) ; An dr e ws , 493 F . 3d a t1056- 57 ( hol di ng tha t“ apr i s one rw ho a l l e ge s thatpr i s on of f i c i a l s c ont i nue w i th a pr a c t i c e tha tha s i nj ur e d hi m orothe r s s i m i l a r l ys i tua t e d i n the pa s tw i l l s a t i s f ythe

‘ on go i ng dang er ’ st andard and m ee tthe i m m i nence prong of the three -s tri kes exce pt i on ” and no t i ng that“ § 1 91 5(g) m er el y e st abl i shes a thres ho l d p roce du ra l q u e s tio n a n dd o e s n o t a s kth e c o u rt to e v a lu a te th e m e r its o f th e s u it” ) . M e n d e z s h a ll b e a rh is o w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l. RE V E RS E D a n d RE MAND E D.