EDWARD VINCENT RAY, Jr. v. A. RIBERA, Water

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD VINCENT RAY, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
A. RIBERA, Water and Sewer Plant
Supervisor at CCI; B. CATES, Chief Deputy
Warden at CCI; J. GUTIERREZ, Associate
Warden at CCI,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-15021
D.C. No. 1:19-cv-01561-AWI-SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Edward Vincent Ray, Jr. appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after denying
Ray’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28
* 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
JUL 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-15021
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 denied Ray’s motion to proceed IFP because Ray
had filed at least three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or
for failure to state a claim, and Ray did not plausibly allege that he was “under
imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053, 1055-56 (discussing the
imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).
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.

-- 2 of 2 --