EDWARD VINCENT RAY, Jr. v. RALPH M. DIAZ, Acting Secretary for the California Department of Corrections

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD VINCENT RAY, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RALPH M. DIAZ, Acting Secretary for the
California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation; M. VOONG; CRAIG
KOENIG, Acting Warden; TANI GORRE
CANTIL-SAKAUYE; ROBERT R. TOY;
FRANK ROESCH; ANNE KIRKPATRICK;
LIBBY SCHAFF; SEAN WHENT;
MICHAEL T. O'CONNER; TERENCE
BRUINERS; CITY OF OAKLAND;
OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-15729
D.C. No. 5:18-cv-06813-EJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
* 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 19-15729
California state prisoner Edward Vincent Ray, Jr. 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 denying Ray’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
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). 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).
We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See
United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
Ray’s motion to expedite and for an injunction (Docket Entry No. 14) is
denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --