MELINDA VALENZUELA V. COUNTY OF MARICOPA, No. 14-17115 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 27 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MELINDA GABRIELLA VALENZUELA, FKA Enrique Mendez, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 14-17115 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01153-NVWMHB v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF MARICOPA; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2015** Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations in connection with her medical care. We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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 affirm. Dismissal of Valenzuela’s action was proper because at least three of Valenzuela’s prior § 1983 actions were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, and Valenzuela did not plausibly allege that she was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time she lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rules exists only where “the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing”). Valenzuela’s request for an order stating that documents must be mailed to the court, filed on April 24, 2015, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 14-17115

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.