MEMORANDUM **

Paul Adams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action following an order revoking his in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 n.6 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly revoked Adams’s IFP status because at the time Adams filed the complaint, he had filed three actions that qualified as “strikes,” and he did not plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Adams’s contention that he is entitled to default judgment.

We reject as without merit Adams’s contentions concerning fraud, leave to amend, and judicial bias.

AFFIRMED.