Case Name: Charles FORDJOUR; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-20
Citations: 53 F. App'x 488
Docket Number: No. 01-17070; D.C. No. CV-00-01684-ROS
Parties: Charles FORDJOUR; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 53
Pages: 488–489

Head Matter:
Charles FORDJOUR; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-17070.
D.C. No. CV-00-01684-ROS.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 2, 2002.
Decided Dec. 20, 2002.
Before GOODWIN, HUG, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arizona state prisoner Charles Fordjour and his wife Angela Fordjour appeal pro se the district court's judgment denying their motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and its order denying their motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.
Appellants contend that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) should not apply to them because Angela Fordjour is not a prisoner. This contention lacks merit because 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) applies to actions filed by prisoners and Charles Fordjour is a prisoner. See id.
Appellants contend that the district court erred by dismissing their action rather than allowing their action to proceed upon payment of the filing fee. This contention lacks merit. Where an application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the action is properly dismissed without prejudice to refiling a new action upon payment of the filing fees. See id. Accordingly, the district court properly denied appellants' motion for reconsideration.
Appellants' remaining contentions lack merit.
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.