MICHAEL HICKS V. M. BOBBALLA, No. 15-17255 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED FEB 24 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL JAMES HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-17255 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01332-EFB MEMORANDUM* M. BOBBALLA; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Edmund F. Brennan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted February 14, 2017*** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Michael James Hicks appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his medical treatment. 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), and for an abuse of discretion its denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We reverse and remand. The district court improperly denied Hicks’ request to proceed in forma pauperis because Hicks made plausible allegations that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint, including that the inadequate physical therapy he received caused paralysis in his left arm and his prescribed pain medication puts him at heightened risk for liver disease because he suffers from hepatitis C. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rule exists “if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing”). REVERSED and REMANDED. 2 15-17255

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.