Case Name: Kevin William KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-20
Citations: 599 F. App'x 317
Docket Number: No. 13-56473
Parties: Kevin William KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: • Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 317–317

Head Matter:
Kevin William KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-56473.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2015.
Filed March 20, 2015.
Kevin William King, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
• Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Former California state prisoner Kevin William King appeals pro se from the district court's order denying him leave to file his complaint in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990). We reverse and remand.
While the grant or denial of a request to proceed in forma pauperis is discretionary, the district court's mere statement that King "may request the Court to allow him to amend [the complaint in another pending action] to add any new allegations" is not an adequate basis for denying King's request to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. See Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir.1987) ("A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.").
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.