Case Name: Bryan Keith RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Francisco QUINTANA, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-29
Citations: 491 F. App'x 844
Docket Number: No. 11-55902
Parties: Bryan Keith RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Francisco QUINTANA, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 491
Pages: 844–845

Head Matter:
Bryan Keith RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Francisco QUINTANA, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-55902.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
Filed Nov. 29, 2012.
Bryan Keith Richardson, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Federal prisoner Bryan Keith Richardson appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). 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), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Richardson's motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the complaint shows that the action is without merit. See id. at 616-17; see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 475-76, 486, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (prisoner has no due process right to present witnesses at prison disciplinary proceeding where no atypical hardship imposed).
Richardson's contention that the district court failed to construe his complaint as a Bivens action is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.