VESTER L. PATTERSON, AKA Vestor Lee Patterson v. California Department of Corrections

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VESTER L. PATTERSON, AKA Vestor
Lee Patterson,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION; CALIFORNIA
CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE
SERVICES,
Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 18-15881
18-16512
D.C. No. 1:17-cv-01428-DAD-
BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Vester L. Patterson, AKA Vestor Lee Patterson,
appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to proceed in
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAY 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15881
18-16512
forma pauperis 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 a 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 Patterson’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis because Patterson failed to allege plausibly 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 1055-57 (discussing the imminent danger
exception to § 1915(g)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --