Benjamin Freeman v. DAVID SHINN, Director, Director at ADOCRR;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENJAMIN FREEMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAVID SHINN, Director, Director at
ADOCRR; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16667
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01373-JAT-MHB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Benjamin Freeman appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after denying Freeman’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
* 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
SEP 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16667
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 Freeman’s motion to proceed IFP because
Freeman had filed at least three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and Freeman failed to allege a nexus
between his alleged imminent danger and the unlawful conduct alleged in his
complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir.
2022) (“[I]n order to qualify for the § 1915(g) imminent danger exception, a three-
strikes prisoner must allege imminent danger of serious physical injury that is both
fairly traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in his complaint and redressable by the
court.”).
Freeman’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 5) is
denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --