Case Name: Paul ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, J. Beard, Secretary, in his/her individual and official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-30
Citations: 704 F. App'x 717
Docket Number: No. 16-56224
Parties: Paul ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, J. Beard, Secretary, in his/her individual and official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 717–718

Head Matter:
Paul ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, J. Beard, Secretary, in his/her individual and official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-56224
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 15, 2017
Filed November 30, 2017
Paul Adams, Pro Se
Cassandra Jean Shryock, Esquire, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, 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
Paul Adams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action following an order revoking his in forma pauperis ("IFP") status. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 n.6 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly revoked Adams's IFP status because at the time Adams 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 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).
We reject as unsupported by the record Adams's contention that he is entitled to default judgment.
We reject as without merit Adams's contentions concerning fraud, leave to amend, and judicial bias.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.