LANCE REBERGER V. JAMES DZURENDA, No. 19-15155 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 12 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LANCE REBERGER, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-15155 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00552-RCJ-WGC MEMORANDUM* JAMES DZURENDA; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 5, 2020** Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Nevada state prisoner Lance Reberger 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 denying Reberger’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. * 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). Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We reverse and remand. The district court denied Reberger’s application to proceed IFP on the basis that Reberger has three prior strikes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). However, Reberger alleged in the complaint that he was under imminent danger of serious physical harm because his prolonged isolation in administrative segregation is causing him physical injuries, he is unable to access his HIV medication as prescribed, and his water is contaminated with chemicals and is undrinkable. These allegations are sufficient to satisfy the “imminent danger” exception. See Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rule exists where “the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.”). We reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED and REMANDED. 2 19-15155

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.