NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 4 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN THOMAS ENTLER, No. 13-36116
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-05098-LRS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOENNE McGERR, Program Manager;
BELINDA D. STEWART, Corrections
Program Administrator,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner John Thomas Entler appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to pay the required filing fee for his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the First Amendment and the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. 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
formal pauperis, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Entler’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis because at least three of Entler’s prior § 1983 actions
were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, and Entler did not
plausibly allege 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 rules exists only where “the
complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of
serious physical injury’ at the time of filing”).
Entler’s reliance on the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is misplaced.
We do not consider allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-36116