MURRELL v. RYAN (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Antony T. Murrell 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 Murrell's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 Murrell's action because Murrell had filed at least three prior actions in federal court that were dismissed as 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 first 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”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Murrell's motion for reconsideration because Murrell presented no basis for reconsideration. 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 bases for reconsideration).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.