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:T49b,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Lenin Garcia appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after denying Garcia’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on the basis that Garcia 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. Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Garcia’s action because three of Garcia’s prior federal actions constitute strikes, and Garcia failed to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g) (precluding prisoner from proceeding IFP where prisoner has previously brought three or more actions or appeals that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005) (defining “frivolous” as having no basis in law or fact). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T4c8,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Lenin Garcia appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after denying Garcia’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on the basis that Garcia 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. Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Garcia’s action because three of Garcia’s prior federal actions constitute strikes, and Garcia failed to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g) (precluding prisoner from proceeding IFP where prisoner has previously brought three or more actions or appeals that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005) (defining “frivolous” as having no basis in law or fact).

AFFIRMED.

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