Ian Lamonte Cormier v. Riverside County District Attorney Office;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IAN LAMONTE CORMIER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OFFICE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-56269
D.C. No. 5:19-cv-01151-SVW-
AFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ian LaMonte Cormier 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 denying Cormier leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district
* 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
JAN 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-56269
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 IFP, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.
1990). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to proceed
IFP and properly dismissed Cormier’s action after he failed to pay the filing fee
because at least three of Cormier’s prior federal actions or appeals qualified as
“strikes” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and Cormier failed to
allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) (requiring a prisoner who is otherwise barred from proceeding IFP under
the PLRA’s “three strikes” provision to show that he faces an imminent danger or
pay the filing fee); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (discussing imminent danger
exception).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or documents and facts not presented to the district court. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias,
921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
The Clerk will provide Cormier with courtesy copies of his filings at Docket
Entry Nos. 16, 17, 20. All other pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --