NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LANCE WILLIAMS, No. 18-16226 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01139-MCE-KJN v. MEMORANDUM* J. ESCALANTE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 12, 2019** Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Lance Williams 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 Williams’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district

* 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). court’s interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.

The district court properly denied Williams’ motion to proceed IFP because Williams had filed at least three prior actions in federal court that were dismissed for being frivolous or malicious, or for failing to state a claim, and failed to plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time that he lodged the complaint. See 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”).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-16226