Martin Jonassen v. United States , 671 F. App'x 668 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 21 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MARTIN JONASSEN,                                 No. 14-16377
    Plaintiff-Appellant,           D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00792-DCB-
    PSOT
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,                MEMORANDUM*
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 14, 2016**
    Before:       WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    Federal prisoner Martin Jonassen appeals pro se from the district court’s
    judgment dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
    Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 
    403 U.S. 388
    (1971), alleging constitutional
    violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
    *
    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).
    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 pauperis, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 
    920 F.2d 614
    ,
    616 (9th Cir. 1990). We vacate and remand.
    The district court revoked Jonassen’s in forma pauperis status without
    considering Jonassen’s proposed Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), which made
    plausible allegations that Jonassen was “under imminent danger of serious physical
    injury” at the time he lodged the TAC. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also 
    Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055
    (an exception to the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three strikes
    rule applies if the complaint plausibly alleges that the prisoner faced imminent
    danger at the time he filed the complaint). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment
    and remand for further proceedings. The district court shall file the TAC docketed
    on March 5, 2014.
    Jonassen’s request for copies of all filings in the record, filed November 18,
    2016, is granted in part. The Clerk shall send Jonassen a copy of the current
    docket sheet and a copy of the court’s September 22, 2016 order.
    All other pending requests and motions are denied.
    VACATED and REMANDED.
    2                                      14-16377
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-16377

Citation Numbers: 671 F. App'x 668

Filed Date: 12/21/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023