Case Name: Ilich VARGAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John MCMAHON, San Bernardino County Sheriff, in his individual and official capacities; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-03-14
Citations: 714 F. App'x 813
Docket Number: No. 16-55816
Parties: Ilich VARGAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John MCMAHON, San Bernardino County Sheriff, in his individual and official capacities; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 714
Pages: 813–814

Head Matter:
Ilich VARGAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John MCMAHON, San Bernardino County Sheriff, in his individual and official capacities; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-55816
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 13, 2018
Filed March 14, 2018
Ilich Vargas, Pro Se
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, 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
Pretrial detainee Ilich Vargas appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from his pending state criminal proceedings and his custody in San Bernardino County's West Valley Detention Center. 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 affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Vargas's motion to pro ceed IFP because Vargas failed to allege facts in his proposed complaint sufficient to state a claim. See id. at 616-17 (district court may deny leave to proceed IFP " 'at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit' ") (quoting Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.