United States v. 2020-09-15 | 19-17212 | ANTONY MURRELL V. CHARLES RYAN | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONY T. MURRELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, Arizona
Department of Corrections at Central Office,
Phoenix; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-17212

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05039-DWL-
DMF

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 8, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Antony T. Murrell 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 Murrell’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We have

*
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

SEP 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-17212
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). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Murrell’s action because Murrell had
filed at least three prior actions in federal court that were dismissed as frivolous or
malicious, or for failing to state a claim, and failed to allege plausibly that he was
“under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time that he lodged the
operative first amended complaint. 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”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Murrell’s motion
for reconsideration because Murrell presented no basis for reconsideration. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and bases for reconsideration).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.