Case Name: Gregory MCCLELLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. LOZANO, Parole Agent-CDCR; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-15
Citations: 695 F. App'x 298
Docket Number: No. 16-15149
Parties: Gregory MCCLELLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. LOZANO, Parole Agent—CDCR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 298–299

Head Matter:
Gregory MCCLELLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. LOZANO, Parole Agent—CDCR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15149
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 9, 2017
Filed August 15, 2017
Gregory McClellan, Pro Se
Jaime Ganson, Deputy Attorney General, Krista Leigh Pollard, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee S. Lozano
Heather Sharon Cohen, Attorney, Michael George Marderosian, Attorney, Marderosian, Cercone & Cohen, Fresno, CA, Virginia Anne Gennaro, Esquire, Chief Counsel, City Attorney, City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield, CA, for Defendants--Appellees Louis Wood, Kenneth Perkins
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, 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 McClellan appeals pro se from the magistrate judge's January 15, 2016 order denying McClellan in forma pauperis ("IFP") status in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The magistrate judge properly denied IFP status because at the time McClellan brought this action, McClellan was a prisoner and had accumulated three strikes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1154 (9th Cir. 2008) ("Because § 1915(g) ., does not distinguish between dismissals with and without prejudice, . a dismissal without prejudice may count as a strike." (citation omitted)).
Defendants' request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 25) is denied.
Defendants' motions to strike evidence attached to the reply brief (Docket Entry Nos. 31 and 32) are granted.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.