NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL R. SPENGLER, No. 22-55505

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-09482-DOC-SP

v. MEMORANDUM* GRAMAXONE; PARAQUAT; TTCF MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION; DOES, 1- 10,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 10, 2023**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Michael R. Spengler appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

* 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). § 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 Spengler’s motion to proceed IFP because

Spengler does not challenge that he had filed at least three prior actions that were

dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim; and Spengler did

not plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical

injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053, 1055-56 (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).

AFFIRMED.

2 22-55505