Lance Williams v. STEVEN GARCIA, Parole Officer Individually and in his Official Capacity;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LANCE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STEVEN GARCIA, Parole Officer
Individually and in his Official Capacity; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-56854
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-06744-PA-KK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Lance Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee
after denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have
* 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
AUG 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-56854
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.
O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We may affirm on any
ground supported by the record. Id. at 617. We affirm.
The district court properly denied Williams’ motion to proceed IFP because
at the time Williams filed the complaint, he had filed three actions that qualified as
“strikes,” and he 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); Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015) (“[P]rior dismissal
on a statutorily enumerated ground counts as a strike even if the dismissal is the
subject of an appeal.”); Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2015)
(dismissal for failure to state a claim because claims were time barred properly
counted as a strike); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007)
(discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --