Edward Faye Parks v. Alphera Financial Services;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EDWARD FAYE PARKS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALPHERA FINANCIAL SERVICES; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17520
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-08149-GMS-
DKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Edward Faye Parks, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis in his action
alleging that defendants violated his rights in connection with the purchase,
FILED
AUG 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-17520 2
repossession, and sale of a vehicle. 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 by denying Parks’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis because at least three of Parks’s prior § 1983 actions
were dismissed on the basis that they were frivolous or failed to state a claim, and
Parks did not provide sufficient allegations to show that he was “under imminent
danger of serious physical injury” at the time he 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”).
Parks’s contentions that the district court violated his due process rights by
failing to order service on defendants in a timely manner is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --