NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANK NUNEZ GARCIA, AKA Fransisco No. 17-16372 Nunez Contreras II, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01489-JJT-DKD Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John J. Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Frank Nunez Garcia, AKA Fransisco Nunez Contreras II, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the interpretation and application of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

§ 1915(g). Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Garcia’s action because at the time Garcia lodged the complaint, he had brought at least three prior cases that qualified as “strikes,” and he failed to allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055-57 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing imminent danger exception).

We do not consider on appeal documents or facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.