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:T45c,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Michael Owen DeVaughn appeals pro se from the district court’s order in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action revoking his application to proceed in for-ma pauperis as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Islamic Shura Council of S. Cal. v. FBI, 757 F.3d 870, 872 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking DeVaughn’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis as a sanction under Rule 11 because DeVaughn’s complaint misrepresented his prior federal litigation history. See Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1389-90 (9th Cir. 1994) (a pro se prisoner’s misrepresentation about previous lawsuits may justify sanctions under Rule 11). We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T48e,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Michael Owen DeVaughn appeals pro se from the district court’s order in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action revoking his application to proceed in for-ma pauperis as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Islamic Shura Council of S. Cal. v. FBI, 757 F.3d 870, 872 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking DeVaughn’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis as a sanction under Rule 11 because DeVaughn’s complaint misrepresented his prior federal litigation history. See Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1389-90 (9th Cir. 1994) (a pro se prisoner’s misrepresentation about previous lawsuits may justify sanctions under Rule 11).

We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

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