# Brian Brown v. Unknown Olivious

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · October 13, 2011 · 453 F. App'x 752

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/615319

## Case

- **Full name:** Brian L. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Unknown OLIVIOUS, Federal Officer; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 13, 2011
- **Citations:** 453 F. App'x 752
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Hawkins, Silverman, Fletcher
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/615319

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 13 2011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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/615319. Public record. Not legal advice.