KEHANO v. HARRINGTON (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Hawaii state prisoner Roland I. Kehano, Sr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after denying Kehano’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction 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 Kehano’s motion to proceed IFP because Kehano had filed three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and he did not plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he 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 Kehano’s motions for reconsideration because Kehano failed to establish any basis for such relief. 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 grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

We reject as without merit Kehano’s contentions concerning collusion between the district court judge and Kehano’s son’s health care providers.

Kehano’s pending motions raise issues outside the scope of this appeal and are denied.

AFFIRMED.