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:T4ae,MEMORANDUM Thoman John Heilman, a California state prisoner, 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 revoking Heilman’s in for-ma pauperis status (“IFP”) because he has three strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 , 1118 & n.6 (9th Cir. 2005). We vacate and remand. The district court revoked Heilman’s IFP status on the basis that Heilman had filed at least three prior actions in federal court which were dismissed for being frivolous or malicious, or for failing to state a claim. However, at the time of its decision, the district court did not have the benefit of El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2016) and Washington v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, 833 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016). We remand for the district court reconsider Heilman’s IFP status in light of these two intervening opinions. VACATED and REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T4db,

MEMORANDUM

Thoman John Heilman, a California state prisoner, 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 revoking Heilman’s in for-ma pauperis status (“IFP”) because he has three strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 , 1118 & n.6 (9th Cir. 2005). We vacate and remand.

The district court revoked Heilman’s IFP status on the basis that Heilman had filed at least three prior actions in federal court which were dismissed for being frivolous or malicious, or for failing to state a claim. However, at the time of its decision, the district court did not have the benefit of El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2016) and Washington v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, 833 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016). We remand for the district court reconsider Heilman’s IFP status in light of these two intervening opinions.

VACATED and REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.