LONNIE CLARK WILLIAMS, Jr. v. Gomez;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LONNIE CLARK WILLIAMS, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GOMEZ; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15376
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00426-GEB-
EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Lonnie Clark Williams, Jr., appeals pro se from the
district court’s order revoking Williams’s in forma pauperis status and dismissing
her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials poisoned her food and
denied her access to medication. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
FILED
AUG 05 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-15376 2
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 formal pauperis, O’Loughlin v.
Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
The district court properly revoked Williams’s in forma pauperis status
because at least three of Williams’s prior § 1983 actions were dismissed for failure
to state a claim, and Williams did not plausibly allege that she was “under
imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time that she lodged the
complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception
to the three-strikes rule exists only where “the complaint makes a plausible
allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at
the time of filing”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams’s motion
for reconsideration because Williams provided no new evidence or argument
supporting the motion. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty, Or. v. ACandS,
Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and
grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --