LANCE WILLIAMS V. STEVEN GARCIA, No. 16-56854 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LANCE WILLIAMS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-56854 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-06744-PA-KK v. MEMORANDUM* STEVEN GARCIA, Parole Officer Individually and in his Official Capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 9, 2017** Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Lance Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have * 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Id. at 617. We affirm. The district court properly denied Williams’ motion to proceed IFP because at the time Williams filed the complaint, he had filed three actions that qualified as “strikes,” and he did not plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015) (“[P]rior dismissal on a statutorily enumerated ground counts as a strike even if the dismissal is the subject of an appeal.”); Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissal for failure to state a claim because claims were time barred properly counted as a strike); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)). AFFIRMED. 2 16-56854

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.