Oluwa v. Wood

Ninth Circuit

Oluwa v. Wood

312 F. App'x 56

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 11, 2009

DocketNo. 07-55830

StatusPublished

This text of 312 F. App'x 56 (Oluwa v. Wood) 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.

Bluebook

Oluwa v. Wood, 312 F. App'x 56 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Ras Adisa Gamba Oluwa appeals ‘pro se from the district court’s order denying his request to pursue his civil rights action in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Olu-wa’s IFP application because Oluwa is a three-strikes filer under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Oluwa, “while a prisoner, filed more than fifty actions and appeals, at least three of which were dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” Oluwa v. Kuenzi, 2004 WL 937358, at * 1 (N.D.Cal.2004) (citing previous actions filed by Oluwa). Oluwa did not appeal that decision, resulting in a final judgment on his status as a three-strikes filer. The district court also correctly determined that Oluwa did not show that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Ras Adisa Gamba Oluwa appeals ‘pro se from the district court’s order denying his request to pursue his civil rights action in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Olu-wa’s IFP application because Oluwa is a three-strikes filer under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Oluwa, “while a prisoner, filed more than fifty actions and appeals, at least three of which were dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” Oluwa v. Kuenzi, 2004 WL 937358, at * 1 (N.D.Cal.2004) (citing previous actions filed by Oluwa). Oluwa did not appeal that decision, resulting in a final judgment on his status as a three-strikes filer. The district court also correctly determined that Oluwa did not show that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

312 F. App'x 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oluwa-v-wood-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack