Case Name: In re: Peter Thomas McCARTHY, Debtor, Peter Thomas McCarthy, Appellant, v. Amy L. Goldman, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee, and Nature's Wing Fin Design, LLC, Appellee-Intervenor
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-17
Citations: 485 F. App'x 285
Docket Number: No. 10-56742
Parties: In re: Peter Thomas McCARTHY, Debtor, Peter Thomas McCarthy, Appellant, v. Amy L. Goldman, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee, and Nature’s Wing Fin Design, LLC, Appellee-Intervenor.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 485
Pages: 285–285

Head Matter:
In re: Peter Thomas McCARTHY, Debtor, Peter Thomas McCarthy, Appellant, v. Amy L. Goldman, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee, and Nature’s Wing Fin Design, LLC, Appellee-Intervenor.
No. 10-56742.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
Filed Oct. 17, 2012.
Peter T. McCarthy, Oxnard, CA, for Appellant.
Rebecca Yuan Lawlor, Law Offices of Rebecca Lawlor Calkins, Beverly Hills, CA, for Intervenor-Pending.
Brad D. Krasnoff, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee.
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, 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
Peter Thomas McCarthy appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.1987), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McCarthy's request to proceed in forma pauperis in light of the monthly income and assets McCarthy reported in his financial affidavit. See Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 203, 113 S.Ct. 716, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993) (an individual is indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 if he is unable to pay fees and still provide the necessities of life for himself and any dependents). McCarthy's contention that the district court failed to apply the correct legal standard is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.