NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LANCE ELLIOT WILLIAMS, No. 23-15751

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00513-DJC-AC

v.

MEMORANDUM*

D. LACROIX, Correctional Officer,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Daniel J. Calabretta, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Lance Elliot Williams, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se

from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after

denying Williams’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Washington v. L.A. County

Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Williams’s motion to proceed IFP because

Williams does not challenge that he had filed at least three prior actions that were

dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and he failed to

plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at

the time he lodged the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes,

493 F.3d 1047, 1052-53, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger

exception to § 1915(g)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-15751