Case Name: Earnest Cassell WOODS II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Darrell ADAMS; Maurice Junious; Nichols; Meraz; Phillips; Mora; William McGuinness; Eleanor Sandoval, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-06
Citations: 698 F. App'x 528
Docket Number: No. 14-16335
Parties: Earnest Cassell WOODS II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Darrell ADAMS; Maurice Junious; Nichols; Meraz; Phillips; Mora; William McGuinness; Eleanor Sandoval, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and ARTERTON, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 528–529

Head Matter:
Earnest Cassell WOODS II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Darrell ADAMS; Maurice Junious; Nichols; Meraz; Phillips; Mora; William McGuinness; Eleanor Sandoval, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-16335
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted September 14, 2017 San Francisco, California
Filed October 06, 2017
Karen Lehmann Alexander, Heather Ut-techt Guerena, Attorney, Duane Morris LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Kevin Allen Yoth, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and ARTERTON, District Judge.
The Honorable Janet Bond Arterton, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
1. The district court didn't err by finding that Woods failed to show "imminent dan ger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This case is unlike Williams v. Paramo, wheré the prisoner alleged actual threats of violence. See 775 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2015).
2. We grant Woods's first three motions for judicial notice and deny his fourth motion for judicial notice. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.