
    Lance REBERGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael KOEHN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-17430
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 20, 2017
    Lance Reberger, Pro Se
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nevada state prisoner Lance Reberger appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of the “three-strikes” rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion to amend a complaint, City of L.A. v. San Pedro Boat Works, 635 F.3d 440, 446 (9th Cir. 2011), and the denial1 of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We reverse and remand.

The district court properly concluded that Reberger has three prior strikes, as this court determined in Reberger v. Baker, 657 Fed.Appx. 681 (9th Cir. 2016).

However, the district court abused its discretion in denying Reberger leave to proceed in forma pauperis because both the original and proposed amended complaints plausibly allege that Reberger was under imminent danger of serious physical injury because defendants continue to refuse to give him his HIV and seizure medications regularly. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rule exists “if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing”). On remand, the district court shall permit Reberger to proceed in forma pauperis on the amended complaint.

Reberger’s “motion for case for submission” and “motion for reversal and remand” are denied as moot.

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