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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 2 2026 MOLLY C.