Unnamed O.D.O.C. Prisoners, Plaintiff, v. BYERLY (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Oregon state prisoner Sir Giorgio Sanford Clardy 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 Clardy’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 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). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Clardy’s action because Clardy had filed at least three prior actions in federal court that were dismissed for being frivolous or malicious, or for failing to state a claim, and failed to allege plausibly that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time that he lodged the operative amended complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rule exists only where “the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing”).

We reject as meritless Clardy’s contention that the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act is an unconstitutional violation of a prisoner’s right of access to the courts. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 1999) (the “three strikes” provision does not violate a prisoner’s right of access to the courts).

AFFIRMED.