
    Martin JONASSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16377
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 21, 2016
    Martin Jonassen, Pro Se
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Martin Jonassen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 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 constitutional violations. 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, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We vacate and remand.

The district court revoked. Jonassen’s in forma pauperis status without considering Jonassen’s proposed Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), which made plausible allegations that Jonassen was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the TAC. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three strikes rule applies if the complaint plausibly alleges that the prisoner faced imminent danger at the time he filed the complaint). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings. The district court shall file the TAC docketed on March 5, 2014.

Jonassen’s request for copies of all filings in the record, filed November 18, 2016, is granted in part. The Clerk shall send Jonassen a copy of the current docket sheet and a copy of the court’s September 22, 2016 order.

All other pending requests and motions are denied.

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     