Larry M. Hoak v. Attorney General;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY M. HOAK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-35198
D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00550-BLW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Idaho state prisoner Larry M. Hoak 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 revoking Hoak’s in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We
review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C.
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 --

§ 1915(g), Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2005), and we vacate
and remand.
While the district court properly concluded that three of Hoak’s prior federal
actions constituted strikes under § 1915(g), the district court improperly denied
Hoak’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because, in Hoak’s response to the
district court’s revocation order and Hoak’s motion for reconsideration, Hoak
sufficiently demonstrated that he was under “imminent danger of serious physical
injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v.
Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger
exception to the three-strikes rule). Therefore, we vacate the denial of Hoak’s
request to proceed in forma pauperis and the dismissal of his action for failure to
pay the filing fee, and remand for further proccedings.
We reject Hoak’s contentions regarding equitable tolling.
Siegert’s motion for judicial notice, filed on November 25, 2014, is granted.
Hoak’s “motion for the court’s information to review,” filed on June 8,
2015, is denied.
Hoak’s “motion: new information,” filed July 13, 2015, is denied.
VACATED and REMANDED.
14-35198 2

-- 2 of 2 --