Michael Spengler v. Gramaxone

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL R. SPENGLER, No. 22-55505 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-09482-DOC-SP v. MEMORANDUM* GRAMAXONE; PARAQUAT; TTCF MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION; DOES, 1- 10, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 10, 2023** Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Michael R. Spengler appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * 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). § 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 Spengler’s motion to proceed IFP because Spengler does not challenge that he had filed at least three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim; and Spengler did not plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053, 1055-56 (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)). AFFIRMED. 2 22-55505