NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD VINCENT RAY, Jr., No. 19-15729

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:18-cv-06813-EJD

v. MEMORANDUM* RALPH M. DIAZ, Acting Secretary for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; M. VOONG; CRAIG KOENIG, Acting Warden; TANI GORRE CANTIL-SAKAUYE; ROBERT R. TOY; FRANK ROESCH; ANNE KIRKPATRICK; LIBBY SCHAFF; SEAN WHENT; MICHAEL T. O'CONNER; TERENCE BRUINERS; CITY OF OAKLAND; OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 12, 2022**

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

* 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). California state prisoner Edward Vincent Ray, Jr. 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 Ray’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the 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 Ray’s motion to proceed IFP because Ray

had filed at least three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or

for failure to state a claim, and Ray did not plausibly allege 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 1053, 1055-56 (discussing the

imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See

United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

Ray’s motion to expedite and for an injunction (Docket Entry No. 14) is

denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 19-15729