-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 15 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTONY T. MURRELL, No. 19-17212 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05039-DWL- DMF v. CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, Arizona MEMORANDUM* Department of Corrections at Central Office, Phoenix; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 8, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Antony T. Murrell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983action for failure to pay the filing fee after denying Murrell’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We have * 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). 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). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Murrell’s action because Murrell had filed at least three prior actions in federal court that were dismissed as frivolous or malicious, or for failing to state a claim, and failed to allege plausibly that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time that he lodged the operative first amended complaint.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); 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”). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Murrell’s motion for reconsideration because Murrell presented no basis for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,
5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and bases for reconsideration). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright,
587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 19-17212
Document Info
Docket Number: 19-17212
Filed Date: 9/15/2020
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 9/15/2020