Case Name: Paul FEINER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-13
Citations: 127 F. App'x 966
Docket Number: No. 04-56082; D.C. No. CV-04-03390-CBM
Parties: Paul FEINER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 127
Pages: 966–967

Head Matter:
Paul FEINER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-56082.
D.C. No. CV-04-03390-CBM.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 23, 2005.
Decided April 13, 2005.
Paul Feiner, Valley Glen, CA, pro se.
Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Paul Feiner appeals pro se the district court's order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for 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 in denying Feiner leave to file in forma pauperis because Feiner's action is frivolous. See id. at 617 (holding that in forma pauperis complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when it contains no arguable basis in law or fact).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.