Case Name: Barry Simon JAMESON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott P. RAWERS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 357 F. App'x 909
Docket Number: No. 07-17015
Parties: Barry Simon JAMESON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott P. RAWERS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 909–910

Head Matter:
Barry Simon JAMESON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott P. RAWERS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-17015.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Barry Simon Jameson, Coalinga, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Constance L. Picciano, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, Jameson's request for oral argument is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Barry Simon Jameson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's order denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights. 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 reverse and remand.
Under this Court's decision in Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir.2005), a dismissed habeas petition does not count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Because the district court treated as a strike the dismissed habeas petition in Jameson v. Ratelle, No. 96-cv-00299-J- RCM (S.D.Cal. Jan. 27, 1997) (order), we reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
All outstanding motions are denied.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.