Will Palmer v. Nurse Lemoy
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Will Moses Palmer, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference. 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), and for an abuse of discretion its denial of leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Palmer’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because at least three of Palmer’s prior § 1983 actions were dismissed on the basis that they were frivolous or failed to state a claim, and Palmer did not provide plausible allegations that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rule exists only where “the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury* at the time of filing”).