IAN CORMIER V. LYNN WILLIAMS, No. 21-55308 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 31 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IAN LAMONTE CORMIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-55308 D.C. No. 5:20-cv-01877-SVW-AFM MEMORANDUM* LYNN E. WILLIAMS, Correctional Officer in official capacity; KENNETH SELPH, Correctional Officer, in official capacity; J. PERRY, Control Booth Officer, in official capacity; NYGENE, Acting Defense Attorney, in official capacity; RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURTHOUSE CLAIMS PROCESSING OFFICE, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 17, 2022** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Ian LaMonte Cormier appeals pro se from the district court’s order * 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). dismissing his action alleging various claims for failure to pay the filing fee after denying Cormier’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm. The district court properly denied Cormier’s motion to proceed IFP because Cormier had filed at least three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and Cormier 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); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1052-53, 1055-56 (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Cormier’s request to submit the case for decision without oral argument (Docket Entry No. 5) is granted. All other pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 21-55308

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.