Eddie Young v. D. Luna;

13-17642Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAug 25, 2016

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDDIE YOUNG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
D. LUNA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-17642
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-02014-LJO-GSA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Eddie Young appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee.
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.
* 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
AUG 25 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-17642
Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We review for an abuse of
discretion a 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 leave 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 Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1190
(9th Cir. 2015) (allegations of “constant, daily threats of irreparable harm, injury
and death” met the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)); Andrews, 493 F.3d at
1052 (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).
We do not consider facts or documents not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts
not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.