Arlitz

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Eric Charles Rodney K’napp appeals pro se from the district court’s order revoking in forma pauperis status in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district 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 in forma pauperis, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990). We reverse and remand in light of intervening authority.

The district court revoked K’napp’s in forma pauperis status because it counted four dismissals as strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g) (prisoner may generally not bring a civil action in forma pauperis if he has had three or more actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim). However, our intervening decision in Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir.2011), held that “a district court’s dismissal of a case does not count as a ‘strike’ under § 1915(g) until the litigant has exhausted or waived his…