NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEREMY VAUGHN PINSON, No. 20-15328
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00434-RM-PSOT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Jeremy Vaughn Pinson appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing her action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) for failure to
pay the filing fee after denying Pinson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
*
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).
(“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
district court’s interpretation and application of § 1915(g), Washington v. L.A. Cty.
Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016), and for abuse of discretion
for denial of leave to proceed IFP, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.
1990). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Pinson’s motion to proceed IFP because
Pinson had filed three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or
for failure to state a claim, and she did not plausibly allege that she was “under
imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time she lodged the complaint.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053, 1055-56
(9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pinson’s motion for
reconsideration because Pinson failed to establish any basis for such relief. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d, 1262-63 (9th Cir.
1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-15328