Case Name: Lonnie Clark WILLIAMS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOMEZ; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-05
Citations: 536 F. App'x 745
Docket Number: No. 12-15376
Parties: Lonnie Clark WILLIAMS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOMEZ; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 536
Pages: 745–746

Head Matter:
Lonnie Clark WILLIAMS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOMEZ; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-15376.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2013.
Filed Aug. 5, 2013.
Lonnie Clark Williams, Jr., Represa, CA, pro se.
Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, 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 Lonnie Clark Williams, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's order revoking Williams's in forma pauperis status and dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials poisoned her food and denied her access to medication. 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 formal pauperis, O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.
The district court properly revoked Williams's in forma pauperis status because at least three of Williams's prior § 1983 actions were dismissed for failure to state a claim, and Williams did not plausibly allege that she was "under imminent danger of serious physical injury" at the time that she lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rule exists only where "the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced 'imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of filing").
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams's motion for reconsideration because Williams provided no new evidence or argument supporting the motion. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.