Paul Adams v. California Department of Corrections

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL ADAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, J. Beard, Secretary, in
his/her individual and official capacity; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-56224
D.C. No. 5:15-cv-01067-SJO-PJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Paul Adams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action following an order
* 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
NOV 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-56224
revoking his in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 n.6 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly revoked Adams’s IFP status because at the time
Adams 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);
Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the
imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).
We reject as unsupported by the record Adams’s contention that he is
entitled to default judgment.
We reject as without merit Adams’s contentions concerning fraud, leave to
amend, and judicial bias.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --