Rodney Jerome Womack v. D. SWINGLE, M.D./Chief Medical Officer, High Desert State Prison;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODNEY JEROME WOMACK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
D. SWINGLE, M.D./Chief Medical Officer,
High Desert State Prison; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15075
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00829-JAM-AC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Rodney Jerome Womack appeals pro se from the
district court’s order denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
* 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
JAN 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15075
Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We
affirm.
The district court properly denied Womack’s motion to proceed IFP because
at the time Womack filed the complaint, he had filed three actions that qualified as
strikes, and he 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 v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing
the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --