TIMOTHY YOUNG V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-35679 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 16 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-35679 D.C. No. 3:18-cv-01047-MC v. WILLIAM BARR, Attorney General*; et al., MEMORANDUM** Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 11, 2019*** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Timothy Doyle Young 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 it concluded that Young was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis * William Barr has been substituted for his predecessor, Matthew G. Whitaker, as Attorney General under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). ** 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). (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm. The district court properly concluded that Young was not entitled to proceed IFP because Young had filed at least three prior actions in federal court that were dismissed for being frivolous or malicious, or for failing to state a claim, and failed to sufficiently 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 1057 n.11 (courts may reject conclusory allegations of imminent danger, and “normal preclusion principles will prevent a prisoner from avoiding the three-strike rule based on allegations rejected in an earlier case”); Young v. Mellady, No. 5:15-CV-14151, 2016 WL 4596355, at *1 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 2, 2016) (“A federal court in Colorado has previously warned the Plaintiff ‘to refrain from filing repetitious litigation with this Court or any other federal district court regarding issues where venue properly lies in this Court.’” (citing Young v. BOP, No. CIVA 08CV-00182-BNB, 2008 WL 582176, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 3, 2008))). Young’s pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 18-35679

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.