NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VESTER L. PATTERSON, AKA Vestor Nos. 18-15881 Lee Patterson, 18-16512 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:17-cv-01428-DAD- BAM v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MEMORANDUM* CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 21, 2019** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Vester L. Patterson, AKA Vestor Lee Patterson, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to proceed in

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Patterson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis because Patterson failed to allege plausibly that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055-57 (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-15881 18-16512