David Wayne Wilson v. K. Lassiter;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID WAYNE WILSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
K. LASSITER; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16129
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01747-WBS-
KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner David Wayne Wilson 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 the district court denied him leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district
FILED
AUG 04 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

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 its
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 in denying Wilson’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis because at least three of Wilson’s prior 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 actions were dismissed for failure to state a claim, and Wilson did not
plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at
the time that he lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493
F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rule 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.
15-16129 2

-- 2 of 2 --