ROBERT BENYAMINI V. MENDOZA, No. 13-15026 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED AUG 20 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT P. BENYAMINI, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-15026 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02602-LKK-AC v. MEMORANDUM* MENDOZA; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 13, 2014** Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Former California state prisoner Robert P. Benyamini appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the required filing fee, after revoking Benyamini s in forma pauperis status on the ground that he has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have * 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). 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 formal pauperis, O Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Benyamini s in forma pauperis status because three of Benyamini s prior § 1983 actions were dismissed for failure to state a claim, and Benyamini did not plausibly allege that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time that he lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rule exists only where the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing ). Defendants motion for judicial notice, filed November 27, 2013, is denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. 2 13-15026
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
