Case Name: Marvellous A. GREENE, Sr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-22
Citations: 168 F. App'x 781
Docket Number: No. 05-56051
Parties: Marvellous A. GREENE, Sr., Plaintiff — Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants — Appellees.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 168
Pages: 781–782

Head Matter:
Marvellous A. GREENE, Sr., Plaintiff — Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants — Appellees.
No. 05-56051.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
Decided Feb. 22, 2006.
Marvellous A. Greene, Sr., HDSP— High Desert State Prison, Susanville, CA, pro se.
Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Marvellous A. Greene, Sr. (referring to himself as Marvellous Asha Xwah), a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials interfered with his right to access the courts. The district court terminated this action after it denied Greene IFP status on the grounds that he had accrued "three strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's interpretation of section 1915(g) and related legal conclusions, Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.
The district court properly denied Greene leave to proceed IFP because at the time he sought IFP status, he had filed three actions that qualified as "strikes," and he did not allege he was in imminent danger of serious physical harm. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311-12 (9th Cir.1997).
We construe the district court's termination of the action as a dismissal without prejudice to Greene's filing a new action upon payment of the filing fees.
The remaining contentions lack merit.
Greene's December 14, 2005 motion to remand this action to the district court is denied.
AFFIRMED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.