667 Fed.Appx. 969 (9th Cir. 2016), 15-16129, Wilson v. Lassiter
|Citation:||667 Fed.Appx. 969|
|Party Name:||DAVID WAYNE WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K. LASSITER; et al., Defendants-Appellees|
|Attorney:||DAVID WAYNE WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, CMF - CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, Vacaville, CA.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||August 04, 2016|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted July 26, 2016. [**]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01747-WBS-KJN. William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding.
Wilson v. Lassiter, (E.D. Cal., Apr. 23, 2015)
DAVID WAYNE WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, CMF - CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, Vacaville, CA.
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner David Wayne Wilson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee, after the district court denied him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 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), and for an abuse of discretion its denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wilson's request to proceed in forma pauperis because at least three of Wilson's prior 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions were dismissed for failure to state a claim, and Wilson did not plausibly allege that he was " under imminent danger of serious physical injury" at the time that he lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP