22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4f6,MEMORANDUM Melinda Gabrielia Valenzuela, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations in connection with her medical care. 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). We affirm. Dismissal of Valenzuela’s action was proper because at least three of Valenzue la’s prior § 1983 actions were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, and Valenzuela did not plausibly allege that she was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time she lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rules exists only where “the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury5 at the time of filing”). . Valenzuela’s request for-an order stating that documents must be mailed to the court, filed on April 24, 2015, is denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T528,

MEMORANDUM

Melinda Gabrielia Valenzuela, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations in connection with her medical care. 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). We affirm.

Dismissal of Valenzuela’s action was proper because at least three of Valenzue la’s prior § 1983 actions were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, and Valenzuela did not plausibly allege that she was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time she lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rules exists only where “the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury5 at the time of filing”). .

Valenzuela’s request for-an order stating that documents must be mailed to the court, filed on April 24, 2015, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.