Case Name: Jesse J. CALHOUN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald N. STAHL; James Brazelton, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-06-20
Citations: 254 F.3d 845
Docket Number: No. 00-56216
Parties: Jesse J. CALHOUN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald N. STAHL; James Brazelton, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 254
Pages: 845–845

Head Matter:
Jesse J. CALHOUN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald N. STAHL; James Brazelton, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-56216.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 11, 2001
Filed June 20, 2001
Jesse J. Calhoun, pro se, for the plaintiff-appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and denies Calhoun's request for additional time to respond to the screening letter. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We review denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis for an abuse of discretion. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam). Because Calhoun's complaint sought monetary relief for actions taken in the course of employment by persons who are immune from suit, the district court properly denied in forma pauperis status. See Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 49, 118 S.Ct. 966, 140 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998) (legislators); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075-76 (9th Cir.1986) (en banc) (judges and prosecutors).
Although Calhoun correctly contends that portions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act are not applicable to civil detainees, see Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.2000), the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners, cf. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). The district court therefore properly concluded that Calhoun's complaint should not be allowed to proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ni) (requiring dismissal of in forma pauperis proceedings that seek monetary relief against immune defendants).
We have considered Calhoun's remaining contentions and deny them as lacking merit.
AFFIRM1ED.