explaining that the exception to the three-strikes rule applies only “if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury1 at the time of filing”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the exception to the three-strikes rule applies only “if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury1 at the time of filing”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 13 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN L. BROWN, No. 10-16541
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:10-cv-00336-JMR-
PSOT
v.
UNKNOWN OLIVIOUS, Federal Officer; MEMORANDUM *
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John M. Roll, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Brian L. Brown, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s
order denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, under the “three strikes”
provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging
violations of his First and Eighth Amendment rights. 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 pauperis, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brown’s application
to proceed in forma pauperis because Brown does not contest that he is a three-
strikes filer and he failed to show that he was “under imminent danger of serious
physical injury” at the time he filed the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also
Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (explaining that the exception to the three-strikes rule
applies only “if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced
‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing”).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-16541