Skip to main content

PINSON v. Hayden, Dr., Chief of Psychology; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Defendants. (2021)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jeremy Vaughn PINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Hayden, Dr., Chief of Psychology; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Defendants.

No. 19-15515

Decided: January 28, 2021

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Jeremy Vaughn Pinson, Pro Se


Federal prisoner Jeremy Vaughn Pinson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) for failure to pay the filing fee after denying Pinson'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 § 1915(g), Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016), and for abuse of discretion for denial of leave to proceed IFP, O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Pinson's motion to proceed IFP because Pinson had filed three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and she did not plausibly allege that she was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time she 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)).


Copied to clipboard