ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Scott Kobel filed a pro se complaint against various Kansas prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As required by statute, the district court screened Mr. Kobel’s complaint to determine whether he stated a non-frivolous basis for legal relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b); see also Jones *845 v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 213-16, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007). Finding none, the district court warned Mr. Kobel that if he did not correct his complaint and pay the required filing fee, his suit would be dismissed. Mr. Kobel never complied and the district court entered judgment dismissing Mr. Kobel’s complaint without prejudice. Mr. Kobel then filed a motion for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) but the district court denied it. It is this denial Mr. Kobel now appeals.
Mr. Kobel argues that the district court should have reinstated his claims because he changed addresses and never received the district court’s warning. But a movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must “show extraordinary circumstances justifying the reopening of a final judgment.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court found no such circumstances here because nothing prevented Mr. Kobel from apprising the district court of his new location or inquiring about the status of his lawsuit. Neither are we given any reason to think the district court’s analysis or conclusion amounts to a reversible abuse of discretion. Mr. Kobel’s motion to proceed informa pauperis is therefore denied and this appeal is dismissed. This appeal counts as a strike for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Jennings v. Natrona Cnty. Det. Ctr. Med. Facility, 175 F.3d 775, 780 (10th Cir.1999); Johnson v. Standifird, 400 Fed.Appx. 369, 371 (10th Cir.2010). Mr. Kobel is reminded that he must make immediate payment of the unpaid balance of his appellate filing fee. All other motions are denied.