
    Eddie YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. LUNA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-17642
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 16, 2016 
    
    Filed August 25, 2016
    Eddie Young, Delano, CA, Pro Se.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Eddie Young appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee. 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). We review for an abuse of discretion a denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Young leave to proceed in forma pauperis because at least three of Young’s prior § 1983 actions were dismissed for failure to state a claim, and Young did not plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2015) (allegations of “constant, daily threats of irreparable harm, injury and death” met the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1052 (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).

We do not consider facts or documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       ¶⅛ disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     