Opinion
20-56184
05-31-2022
IAN LAMONTE CORMIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JACQUELINE LEE COOPER, individual and official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 5:20-cv-01722-SVW-AFM for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Ian LaMonte Cormier appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging various claims for failure to pay the filing fee after denying Cormier'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 interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Cormier's motion to proceed IFP because Cormier had filed at least three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and Cormier did not 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, 493 F.3d at 1053, 1055-56 (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Cormier's request to submit the case for decision without oral argument (Docket Entry No. 6) is granted. All other pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).