Case Name: Larry M. HOAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-31
Citations: 608 F. App'x 559
Docket Number: No. 14-35198
Parties: Larry M. HOAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 608
Pages: 559–559

Head Matter:
Larry M. HOAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-35198.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 21, 2015
Filed July 31, 2015.
Larry M. Hoak, Boise, ID, pro se.
Mary Karin Magnelli, Agid-Idaho Office of the Attorney General, Leslie M. Hayes, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, 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
Idaho state prisoner Larry M. Hoak 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 revoking Hoak's in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We review de novo the district court's interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir.2005), and we vacate and remand.
While the district court properly concluded that three of Hoak's prior federal actions constituted strikes under § 1915(g), the district court improperly denied Hoak's request to proceed in forma pauperis because, in Hoak's response to the district court's revocation order and Hoak's motion for reconsideration, Hoak sufficiently demonstrated 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, 1055 (9th Cir.2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to the three-strikes rule). Therefore, we vacate the denial of Hoak's request to proceed in forma pauperis and the dismissal of his action for failure to pay the filing fee, and remand for further proceedings.
We reject Hoak's contentions regarding equitable tolling.
Siegert's motion for judicial notice, filed on November 25, 2014, is granted.
Hoak's "motion for the court's information to review," filed on June 8, 2015, is denied.
Hoak's "motion: new information," filed July 13, 2015, is denied.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.