12-17492•Bryan Edwin Ransom v. D. ORTIZ, Associate Warden of CSP- Corcoran;
12-17492Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit17 de mar. de 2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRYAN EDWIN RANSOM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
D. ORTIZ, Associate Warden of CSP-
Corcoran; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17492
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00617-LJO-
GBC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2014**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Bryan Edwin Ransom appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment
FILED
MAR 17 2014
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 --
violations. We have 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), and for an abuse of discretion the
denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614,
616 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ransom’s request
to proceed in forma pauperis because at least three of Ransom’s prior 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 actions were dismissed on the basis that they were frivolous or failed to
state a claim, and Ransom did not provide sufficient allegations to show that he
was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the
complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception
to the three-strikes rules exists only where “the complaint makes a plausible
allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at
the time of filing”).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-17492
-- 2 of 2 --
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.