Case Name: Gregory C. BONTEMPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARPER, Correctional Sergeant, High Desert State Prison, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-29
Citations: 708 F. App'x 430
Docket Number: No. 16-16418
Parties: Gregory C. BONTEMPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARPER, Correctional Sergeant, High Desert State Prison, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 708
Pages: 430–431

Head Matter:
Gregory C. BONTEMPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARPER, Correctional Sergeant, High Desert State Prison, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-16418
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 18, 2017
Filed December 29, 2017
Gregory C, Bontemps, Pro Se
Derrek J. Lee, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
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
Gregory C. Bontemps, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after revoking his in forma pauperis status ("IFP") on the ground that Bon-temps has "three strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriffs Dep't, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly revoked Bon-temps' IFP status because at least three of Bontemps' prior cases qualified as "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1138, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) ("[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)."); Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (defining when a case is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and can be considered a strike).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised- for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.