ANTOINE LEBLANC V. DEBBIE ASUNCION, No. 17-55103 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 30 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTOINE LeBLANC, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-55103 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-07522-JLS-AFM v. MEMORANDUM* DEBBIE ASUNCION, Warden, in individual and official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Antoine LeBlanc, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis status (“IFP”) on the ground that LeBlanc has “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. * 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). We review de novo the interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm. The district court properly denied LeBlanc’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because at least three of LeBlanc’s prior cases qualified as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (defining when a case is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim, and can be considered a strike); see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that it was not an abuse of discretion to dismiss a duplicative complaint as frivolous or malicious under an earlier version of 28 U.S.C. § 1915). Because we affirm on the ground that the district court properly concluded LeBlanc had at least three strikes, we treat the dismissal of the action as being without prejudice. See Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming district court’s dismissal of case without prejudice where prisoner had accumulated three strikes). In light of our disposition, we do not consider the district court’s order on the merits of LeBlanc’s claims. AFFIRMED. 2 17-55103
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.
