Jeremy Vaughn Pinson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEREMY VAUGHN PINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-15162
D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00401-RM-PSOT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Jeremy Vaughn Pinson appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing her action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for failure to
pay the filing fee after denying Pinson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
* 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).
FILED
JAN 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-15162
(“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
district court’s interpretation and application of § 1915(g), Washington v. L.A. Cty.
Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016), and for an abuse of discretion
for denial of leave to proceed IFP, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.
1990). We reverse and remand.
The district court denied Pinson’s motion to proceed IFP on the basis that
Pinson has had three or more prior actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and that she did not establish she was in
imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). However,
Pinson’s allegations plausibly allege an imminent danger of serious physical
injury. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (an
exception to the three-strikes rule exists where “the complaint makes a plausible
allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at
the time of filing”); see also Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.
2015) (court should liberally construe a prisoner’s “facial allegations” and
determine if the complaint “makes a plausible allegation” of imminent danger).
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --