EDWARD VINCENT RAY, Jr. v. L. Parreno

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD VINCENT RAY, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
L. PARRENO,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 19-17137
D.C. No. 5:19-cv-03086-EJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Edward Vincent Ray, Jr. 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 denying Ray’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district
* 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
JUL 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-17137
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 Ray’s motion to proceed IFP because Ray
had filed at least three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or
for failure to state a claim, and Ray failed to allege a nexus between his alleged
imminent danger and the unlawful conduct alleged in his complaint. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g); Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[I]n order to qualify for
the § 1915(g) imminent danger exception, a three-strikes prisoner must allege
imminent danger of serious physical injury that is both fairly traceable to unlawful
conduct alleged in his complaint and redressable by the court.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --