Case ID: f-appx_18/html/0537-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Loanita ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF TUKWILA, a Municipal Court; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 00-35560. D.C. No. CV-99-01472-BJR(MJB).
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 13, 2001.
    
    Decided Aug. 29, 2001.
    Before HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Loanita Adams appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 & n. 12 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), and we affirm

On August 28, 2000, the district court certified that this appeal is not taken in good faith, and revoked appellant’s in forma pauperis status. This court, however, did not receive notification of the district court’s certification until August 7, 2001. Based on these circumstances, we conclude that appellant is entitled to in forma pauperis status for this appeal.

Because amendment would have been futile, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir.1996).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.