DAVID WILSON V. K. LASSITER, No. 15-16129 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 04 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID WAYNE WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 15-16129 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01747-WBSKJN v. MEMORANDUM* K. LASSITER; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner David Wayne Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee, after the district court denied him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district * 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). 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 forma pauperis, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wilson’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because at least three of Wilson’s prior 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions were dismissed for failure to state a claim, and Wilson 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”). AFFIRMED. 2 15-16129

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.