Will Palmer v. Nurse Lemoy

Ninth Circuit

Will Palmer v. Nurse Lemoy

513 F. App'x 685

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 22, 2013

Docket12-15489

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 513 F. App'x 685 (Will Palmer v. Nurse Lemoy) 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

Will Palmer v. Nurse Lemoy, 513 F. App'x 685 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Will Moses Palmer, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir.2007), and for an abuse of discretion its denial of leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Palmer’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because at least three of Palmer’s prior § 1983 actions were dismissed on the basis that they were frivolous or failed to state a claim, and Palmer did not provide plausible allegations that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rule exists only where “the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury* at the time of filing”).

We do not consider Palmer’s contentions concerning the district court’s allegedly improper decisions in an earlier action.

Palmer’s motion for judicial notice, filed on June 29, 2012, is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

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

MEMORANDUM **

Will Moses Palmer, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir.2007), and for an abuse of discretion its denial of leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Palmer’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because at least three of Palmer’s prior § 1983 actions were dismissed on the basis that they were frivolous or failed to state a claim, and Palmer did not provide plausible allegations that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rule exists only where “the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury* at the time of filing”).

We do not consider Palmer’s contentions concerning the district court’s allegedly improper decisions in an earlier action.

Palmer’s motion for judicial notice, filed on June 29, 2012, is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 F. App'x 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/will-palmer-v-nurse-lemoy-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack