Court Opinion

ID: 9891805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 18:00:42.869922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.756720
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 18 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL R. SPENGLER,                            No. 22-55505

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:21-cv-09482-DOC-SP

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
GRAMAXONE; PARAQUAT; TTCF
MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION; DOES, 1-
10,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                    David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted October 10, 2023**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Michael R. Spengler appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007).

We affirm.

      The district court properly denied Spengler’s motion to proceed IFP because

Spengler does not challenge that he had filed at least three prior actions that were

dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim; and Spengler 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, 493

F.3d at 1053, 1055-56 (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    22-55505