LANCE WILLIAMS V. D. LACROIX, No. 23-15751 (9th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 30 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LANCE ELLIOT WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-15751 D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00513-DJC-AC v. MEMORANDUM* D. LACROIX, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Daniel J. Calabretta, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2024** Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Lance Elliot Williams, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after denying Williams’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 * 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). interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Washington v. L.A. County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm. The district court properly denied Williams’s motion to proceed IFP because Williams does not challenge that he had filed at least three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and he failed to 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 v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052-53, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007) (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 23-15751

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.