Michael R. Spengler v. Gramaxone; Paraquat; Ttcf Medical Administration; Does, 1- 10

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL R. SPENGLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GRAMAXONE; PARAQUAT; TTCF
MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION; DOES, 1-
10,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-55505
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-09482-DOC-SP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 10, 2023**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Michael R. Spengler appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* 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
OCT 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-55505
§ 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 denied Spengler’s motion to proceed IFP because
Spengler does not challenge that he had filed at least three prior actions that were
dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim; and Spengler 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); Andrews, 493
F.3d at 1053, 1055-56 (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --