
    Brian L. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Unknown OLIVIOUS, Federal Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-16541.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 13, 2011.
    Brian L. Brown, Pine Knot, KY, pro se.
    Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Brian L. Brown, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, under the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging violations of his First and Eighth Amendment rights. 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), and for an abuse of discretion its denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brown’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because Brown does not contest that he is a three-strikes filer and he failed to show that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (explaining that the exception to the three-strikes rule applies only “if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury1 at the time of filing”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     