NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 28 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEAVON PIERCE, No. 16-16523
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-01083-LJO-SAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DONALD J. TRUMP, President,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Seavon Pierce appeals pro se from the district
court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing
fee, after denying Pierce’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on the
basis that Pierce has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s
Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Pierce’s motion to proceed IFP because at
the time Pierce filed the complaint, he had filed three actions that qualified as
strikes, and he 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);
Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing
the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts
not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
Pierce’s requests for judicial notice, set forth in his opening brief and Docket
Entry Nos. 8 and 17, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-16523