Case Name: Ossie Lee SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffrey A. UTTECHT, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-26
Citations: 708 F. App'x 386
Docket Number: No. 16-35947
Parties: Ossie Lee SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffrey A. UTTECHT, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 708
Pages: 386–387

Head Matter:
Ossie Lee SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffrey A. UTTECHT, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-35947
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 18, 2017
Filed December 26, 2017
Ossie Lee Slaughter, 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
Ossie Lee Slaughter, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after denying Slaughter's application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). 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). Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Slaughter's motion to proceed IFP because at the time Slaughter filed the complaint, Slaughter had filed three actions or appeals that qualified as "strikes," and Slaughter did not plausibly allege that he was "under imminent danger of serious physical injury" at the time he lodged the complaint | or the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);' Harris, 863 F.3d at 1143 ("[W]hen (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint, the dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g)."); Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2015) (appellate court's denial of IFP because the appeal is frivolous counts as a "strike" even though the court does not dismiss the appeal until later, after appellant fails to pay the filing fee).
We reject as meritless Slaughter's contentions of judicial misconduct or bias.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.