MEMORANDUM **

Gregory C. Bontemps, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after revoking his in forma pauperis status (“IFP”) on the ground that Bon-temps has “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriffs Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly revoked Bon-temps’ IFP status because at least three of Bontemps’ prior cases qualified as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1138, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[W]hen (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint, the dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g).”); Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (defining when a case is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and can be considered a strike).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or 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.