Tyrone Jerald Lee v. Dyke

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TYRONE JERALD LEE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DYKE,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-35850
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-01245-MO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Docket Entry No. 6) is
granted.
Tyrone Jerald Lee appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying
Lee’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
* 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 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-35850
alleging claims arising from his pre-trial detention. 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 Lee’s motion to proceed IFP because Lee
had filed at least three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or
for failure to state a claim, and Lee 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)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --