VICTOR TAGLE V. CCA, No. 19-16287 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 26 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTOR MANUEL TAGLE, AKA Victor Tagle, AKA Victor Manuel Tagle-Moreno, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-16287 D.C. No. 2:19-cv-04324-DLRMHB MEMORANDUM* CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 25, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: CANBY, GOULD, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Victor Manuel Tagle 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 Tagle’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We * 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). 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 we affirm. The district court properly denied Tagle’s motion to proceed IFP because Tagle 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 plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time that he lodged the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rule exists only where “the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing”). AFFIRMED. 2 19-16287

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.