RODNEY WOMACK V. L. SULLIVAN, No. 14-15410 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 26 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 14-15410 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00085-WBSEFB v. MEMORANDUM* L. SULLIVAN; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2015** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Rodney Jerome Womack, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference and retaliation. The district court dismissed for failure to pay a filing fee, after it denied Womack in forma pauperis status on the grounds that he had * 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). “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of section 1915(g) and related legal conclusions, Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Womack leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it correctly determined that Womack had filed at least three actions that had been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining the meaning of “frivolous” and “failure to state a claim” under § 1915(g)). Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Womack’s action for failure to pay the requisite filing fee. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 2 14-15410

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.