EDWARD RAY, JR. V. METCALF, No. 19-16867 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 19 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD VINCENT RAY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-16867 D.C. No. 5:19-cv-01247-EJD MEMORANDUM* METCALF, Correctional Officer; S. DUNAVEN; BOTELLO, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 12, 2022** Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Edward Vincent Ray, Jr. 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 Ray’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district * 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). 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 Ray’s motion to proceed IFP because Ray had filed at least three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and Ray failed to allege a nexus between his alleged imminent danger and the unlawful conduct alleged in his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[I]n order to qualify for the § 1915(g) imminent danger exception, a three-strikes prisoner must allege imminent danger of serious physical injury that is both fairly traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in his complaint and redressable by the court.”). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 19-16867

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.