James v. Flowerdew

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 2, 2026
• Docket: 25-5454
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 2 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAUL R. JAMES, Jr., No. 25-5454 D.C. No. 3:25-cv-00130-SLG Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* FLOWERDEW, Administration,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2025**

Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Alaska state prisoner Paul R. James, Jr. appeals pro se from the district

court’s order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. 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 James’s motion to proceed IFP because

James filed at least three prior actions in federal court that were dismissed as

frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and James failed to allege a

nexus between his alleged imminent danger and unlawful conduct by Flowerdew

alleged in the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701

(9th Cir. 2022) (explaining that “in 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).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-5454