CRUZ TRUJILLO v. LEYVA (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Guillermo Cruz Trujillo 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 concluding that Trujillo is not entitled 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 may affirm on any basis supported in the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Trujillo was not entitled to proceed IFP because at the time Trujillo filed the complaint, Trujillo had filed three actions or appeals that qualified as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Trujillo v. Gonzalez-Moran, et al., Case No. 17-15200 (9th Cir. 2017); Cruz v. Ruiz, et al., No. 1:14-cv-00975-SAB (PC), 2016 WL 8999460 (E.D. Cal. January 6, 2016); Trujillo v. Sherman, et al., No. 1:14-cv-01401-BAM (PC), 2015 WL 13049186 (E.D. Cal. April 24, 2015). Moreover, Trujillo 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, 1055-57 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).

AFFIRMED.