Danny Cohea v. Nancy Grannis
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Danny James Cohea appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply -with the court’s order to pay the required filing fee after revoking his in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of § 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 vacate and remand.
The district court properly determined that at least three of Cohea’s prior § 1983 actions were dismissed on the basis that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g); see also Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.2005) (for purposes of § 1915(g), district court must look at dismissal orders and other relevant records to determine if the basis of prior dismissals was that the action was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim).