MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Guillermo Cruz Trujillo appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after revoking Trujillos permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district courts interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. OLoughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
The district court properly revoked Trujillos IFP status because at the time Trujillo filed the complaint, he had filed at least three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and Trujillo failed to allege plausibly that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time that he lodged the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Hoffmann v. Pulido, 928 F.3d 1147, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that a dismissal order by a magistrate judge that did not have consent of the unserved party, but is otherwise final, is not subject to collateral attack and therefore remains a strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (discussing the “imminent danger exception” under § 1915(g)).
AFFIRMED.