
    Lance WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHARP, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-17105
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 17, 2017
    Lance Williams, Pro Se
    Laraya Parnell, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lance Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after revoking his in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status because he had three strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 n.6 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly revoked Williams’ IFP status because at the time Williams filed the complaint, he had filed three actions that qualified as “strikes,” and he did not plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Coleman v. Tollefson, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015) (“[P]rior dismissal on a statutorily enumerated ground counts as a strike even if the dismissal is the subject of an appeal”); Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissal for failure to state a claim because claims were time barred properly counted as a strike); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

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