Gregory C. Bontemps v. HARPER, Correctional Sergeant, High Desert State Prison

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY C. BONTEMPS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HARPER, Correctional Sergeant, High
Desert State Prison,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-16418
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00506-MCE-EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Gregory C. Bontemps, 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 revoking his in forma pauperis status (“IFP”) on the ground that
Bontemps has “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction
* 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
DEC 29 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-16418
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s
Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly revoked Bontemps’ IFP status because at least
three of Bontemps’ prior cases qualified as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See
Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[W]hen (1) a district
court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court
grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint,
the dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g).”); Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d
1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (defining when a case is frivolous or malicious, or fails
to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and can be considered a strike).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --