MEMORANDUM Gregory C. Bontemps, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after revoking his in forma pauperis status (“IFP”) on the ground that Bon-temps has “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C, § 1291. We review de novo. Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly revoked Bon-temps’ IFP status because at least three of Bontemps’ prior cases qualified as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and Bon-temps did not allege facts demonstrating that he faced imminent danger at the time he filed his complaint. See Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (defining when a case is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and can be considered a strike); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055-57 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing imminent danger exception); see also Harris v.
Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[W]hen (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint, the dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g).”). Bontemps’ motion seeking appointment of counsel, attached to his opening brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,