FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DENNIS M. COTA, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendant's unopposed motion to revoke plaintiff's in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 19). Defendant contends in forma pauperis status should be revoked pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).

The PLRA's "three strikes" provision, found at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), provides as follows:

Thus, when a prisoner plaintiff has had three or more prior actions dismissed for one of the reasons set forth in the statute, such "strikes" preclude the prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis unless the imminent danger exception applies. Dismissals for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies generally do not count as "strikes" unless the failure to exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint. See Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2015). Dismissed habeas petitions do not count as "strikes" under § 1915(g). See Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2005). Where, however, a dismissed habeas action was merely a disguised civil rights action, the district court may conclude that it counts as a "strike." See id. at n.12.

When in forma pauperis status is denied, revoked, or otherwise unavailable under § 1915(g), the proper course of action is to dismiss the action without prejudice to re-filing the action upon pre-payment of fees at the time the action is re-filed. In Tierney v. Kupers, the Ninth Circuit reviewed a district court's screening stage dismissal of a prisoner civil rights action after finding under § 1915(g) that the plaintiff was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. See 128 F.3d 1310 (9th Cir. 1998). Notably, the district court dismissed the entire action rather than simply providing the plaintiff an opportunity to pay the filing fee. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff's case was "properly dismissed." Id. at 1311. Similarly, in Rodriguez v. Cook, the Ninth Circuit dismissed an inmate's appeal in a prisoner civil rights action because it concluded that he was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal pursuant to the "three strikes" provision. See 169 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 1999). Again, rather than providing the inmate appellant an opportunity to pay the filing fee, the court dismissed the appeal without prejudice and stated that the appellant "may resume this appeal upon prepaying the filing fee."

This conclusion is consistent with the conclusions reached in at least three other circuits. In Dupree v. Palmer, the Eleventh Circuit held that denial of in forma pauperis status under § 1915(g) mandated dismissal. See 284 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2002). The court specifically held that "the prisoner cannot simply pay the filing fee after being denied IFP status" because "[h]e must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit." Id. at 1236 (emphasis in original). The Fifth and Sixth Circuits follow the same rule. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996); In re Alea, 86 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 2002).

This court has previously determined plaintiff has three or more "strikes." See Langston v. Sharma, No. 2:15-CV-1437-GEB-KJN. The court takes judicial notice of this prior determinations, see Chandler v. U.S., 378 F.2d 906, 909 (9th Cir. 1967), and likewise concludes plaintiff has three or more "strikes." The court also finds plaintiff has not faced imminent danger of serious bodily physical injury at the time the action was filed. See Andrews v. Cerbantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff claims of constitutional violations when he was housed at the California Health Care Facility (CHCF) and the California Training Facility (CTF). See ECF No. 1. When plaintiff filed this action, however, he was housed at Valley State Prison. See id. Therefore, he was not under imminent danger of physical harm from prison officials at either CHCF or CTF at the time he filed this lawsuit.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that defendant's unopposed motion to revoke plaintiff's in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 19) be granted and that this action be dismissed without prejudice to re-filing upon pre-payment of the full filing fee.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).