Lance Williams v. J. Escalante;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LANCE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J. ESCALANTE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-16226
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01139-MCE-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Lance Williams 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 Williams’ 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
MAR 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-16226
court’s interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Andrews v.
Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
The district court properly denied Williams’ motion to proceed IFP because
Williams had filed at least three prior actions in federal court that were dismissed
for being frivolous or malicious, or for failing to state a claim, and failed to
plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at
the time that he lodged the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); 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”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --