
    Raymond Alford BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. OGBUEHI and Nietas, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15899
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 20, 2017
    Raymond Alford Bradford, 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

California state prisoner Raymond Alford Bradford appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to Bradford’s ulcerative colitis and celiac disease. 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), 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 reverse and remand.

The district court abused its discretion in denying Bradford leave to proceed in forma pauperis because Bradford plausibly alleged that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1056-57 (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)); see also Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1189-90 (9th Cir. 2015) (court should liberally construe prisoner’s “facial allegations” and determine if the complaint “makes a plausible allegation” of imminent danger).

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.”).

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