Eddie Young v. A. Martinez;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDDIE YOUNG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
A. MARTINEZ; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-15649
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00817-AWI-
MJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Eddie Young appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice after denying Young’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and
FILED
JUL 31 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th
Cir. 2005), 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 Young’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis because at least three of Young’s prior § 1983 actions
were dismissed for failure to state a claim, and Young did not plausibly allege 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 v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d
1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (an exception to the three-strikes rule applies “if the
complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner ‘faced imminent danger of
serious physical injury’ at the time of filing”).
Because Young failed to pay the filing fee as ordered, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in dismissing Young’s action without prejudice for failure
to comply with a court order. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th
Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and factors for a district court to
consider in determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court
order).
AFFIRMED.
14-15649 2

-- 2 of 2 --