Lance Williams v. D. Lacroix
This text of Lance Williams v. D. Lacroix (Lance Williams v. D. Lacroix) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LANCE ELLIOT WILLIAMS, No. 23-15751
Plaintiff-Appellant, 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Lance Williams v. D. Lacroix, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lance-williams-v-d-lacroix-ca9-2024.