Case Name: Richard Roy SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACIFIC COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-27
Citations: 623 F. App'x 493
Docket Number: No. 14-35501
Parties: Richard Roy SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACIFIC COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 493–494

Head Matter:
Richard Roy SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACIFIC COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-35501.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Filed Nov. 27, 2015.
Richard Roy Scott, Steilacoom, WA, pro se.
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Richard Roy Scott, who is civilly committed, appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his application to proceed in fonna pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, O'Loughin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990). We reverse and remand.
In a prior action, Scott v. Weinberg, No. 3:06-cv-05172-FDB, 2007 WL 963990 (WD.Wash. Mar. 27, 2007), the district court imposed a vexatious litigant order barring Scott from filing a complaint in forma pauperis unless he alleges that he is "under imminent danger of serious physi cal injury" consistent with the pre-filing requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In the instant action, the district court improperly denied Scott's motion to proceed in forma pauperis because Scott plausibly alleged that he was "under imminent danger of serious physical injury" at the time that he lodged the complaint, which included allegations that two violent individuals were transferred into his living unit, one of whom threatened to kill Scott. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055-56 (9th Cir.2007) (discussing imminent danger under § 1915(g)).
We do not consider Scott's challenge to the validity of the vexatious litigant order because Scott failed to raise the issue before the district court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.