Case Name: Seavon PIERCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald J. TRUMP, President, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-28
Citations: 708 F. App'x 408
Docket Number: No. 16-16523
Parties: Seavon PIERCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald J. TRUMP, President, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 708
Pages: 408–409

Head Matter:
Seavon PIERCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald J. TRUMP, President, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-16523
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 18, 2017
Filed December 28, 2017
Seavon Pierce, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Seavon Pierce appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action for failure to pay the filing fee, after denying Pierce's application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") on the basis that Pierce has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Pierce's motion to proceed IFP because at the time Pierce 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) ("Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.").
Pierce's requests for judicial notice, set forth in his opening brief and Docket Entry Nos. 8 and 17, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.