NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        DEC 21 2017
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY C. BONTEMPS,                             No. 16-56888

                Plaintiff-Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:15-cv-03171-JFW-SP

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
GODINA, Correctional Officer, California
State Prison, in his/her individual capacity,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                     John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 18, 2017**

Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

      Gregory C. Bontemps, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the

filing fee after revoking his in forma pauperis status (“IFP”) on the ground that

Bontemps has “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction


      *
             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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s

Dep’t, 

, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

       The district court properly revoked Bontemps’ IFP status because at least

three of Bontemps’ prior cases qualified as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and

Bontemps did not allege facts demonstrating that he faced imminent danger at the

time he filed his complaint. See Knapp v. Hogan, 

, 1109 (9th Cir.

2013) (defining when a case is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and can be considered a strike); Andrews v. Cervantes,

, 1055-57 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing imminent danger exception);

see also Harris v. Mangum, 

, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[W]hen (1) a

district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2)

the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended

complaint, the dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g).”).

       Bontemps’ motion seeking appointment of counsel, attached to his opening

brief, is denied.

       AFFIRMED.




                                           2                                     16-56888