EDWARD RAY, JR. V. A. RIBERA, No. 20-15021 (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 19 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD VINCENT RAY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF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. 20-15021 D.C. No. 1:19-cv-01561-AWI-SKO MEMORANDUM* A. RIBERA, Water and Sewer Plant Supervisor at CCI; B. CATES, Chief Deputy Warden at CCI; J. GUTIERREZ, Associate Warden at CCI, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, 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 after denying Ray’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 * 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). 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 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 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 1053, 1055-56 (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)). 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 20-15021

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.