CORMIER v. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-27No. No. 19-56269

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of in forma pauperis status and dismissal of the action, finding that Cormier had accrued three qualifying strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and failed to allege imminent danger of serious physical injury necessary to invoke the exception to the filing fee requirement.

Ian LaMonte Cormier, a California state prisoner, sought to appeal a federal lawsuit dismissal without paying the filing fee by requesting in forma pauperis status. The district court denied his request and dismissed the case for failure to pay. Cormier appealed, but the court found that his prior federal lawsuits and appeals qualified as multiple "strikes" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which limited his ability to proceed without payment. Because Cormier did not demonstrate that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury—an exception that would have allowed him to proceed without payment despite the strikes—the denial of his request was proper.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Application of the Prison Litigation Reform Act's "three strikes" provision to bar in forma pauperis status
Requirements for the imminent danger exception to the three-strikes filing fee bar
Proper scope of appellate review for denial of in forma pauperis status

Procedural posture

The appellant appealed the district court's order dismissing his civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Ian LaMonte Cormier appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after denying Cormier leave 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), and for an abuse of discretion its denial of leave to proceed IFP, OLoughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to proceed IFP and properly dismissed Cormiers action after he failed to pay the filing fee because at least three of Cormiers prior federal actions or appeals qualified as “strikes” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and Cormier failed to allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (requiring a prisoner who is otherwise barred from proceeding IFP under the PLRAs “three strikes” provision to show that he faces an imminent danger or pay the filing fee); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (discussing imminent danger exception).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or documents and facts not presented to the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

The Clerk will provide Cormier with courtesy copies of his filings at Docket Entry Nos. 16, 17, 20. All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.