FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10768340
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

James v. Flowerdew

No. 10768340 · Decided January 2, 2026
No. 10768340 · Ninth Circuit · 2026 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
January 2, 2026
Citation
No. 10768340
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 2 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAUL R. JAMES, Jr., No. 25-5454 D.C. No. 3:25-cv-00130-SLG Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* FLOWERDEW, Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2025** Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges. Alaska state prisoner Paul R. James, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and * 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). 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 James’s motion to proceed IFP because James filed at least three prior actions in federal court that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and James failed to allege a nexus between his alleged imminent danger and unlawful conduct by Flowerdew alleged in the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining that “in order to qualify for the § 1915(g) imminent danger exception, a three-strikes prisoner must allege imminent danger of serious physical injury that is both fairly traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in his complaint and redressable by the court”). 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). All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 25-5454
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 2 2026 MOLLY C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 2 2026 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for James v. Flowerdew in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on January 2, 2026.
Use the citation No. 10768340 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →