BENJAMIN FREEMAN V. DAVID SHINN, ET AL, No. 22-16667 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 20 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BENJAMIN FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-16667 D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01373-JAT-MHB MEMORANDUM* DAVID SHINN, Director, Director at ADOCRR; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2023** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Benjamin Freeman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after denying Freeman’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 * 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). 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 Freeman’s motion to proceed IFP because Freeman had filed at least three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and Freeman 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 threestrikes 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.”). Freeman’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 5) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 22-16667

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.