Roland I. Kehano, Sr. v. SCOTT HARRINGTON, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROLAND I. KEHANO, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SCOTT HARRINGTON, Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-15512
D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00018-SOM-KJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Susan O. Mollway, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Hawaii state prisoner Roland I. Kehano, Sr. 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 Kehano’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Washington v.
* 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 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-15512
L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Kehano’s motion to proceed IFP because
Kehano had filed three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or
for failure to state a claim, 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); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053, 1055-56
(9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kehano’s motions
for reconsideration because Kehano failed to establish any basis for such relief.
See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d, 1262-63 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).
We reject as without merit Kehano’s contentions concerning collusion
between the district court judge and Kehano’s son’s health care providers.
Kehano’s pending motions raise issues outside the scope of this appeal and
are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --