Case Name: Tresa Leola BOWEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner for Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-16
Citations: 487 F. App'x 353
Docket Number: No. 11-55935
Parties: Tresa Leola BOWEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner for Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 487
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
Tresa Leola BOWEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner for Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-55935.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
Filed Oct. 16, 2012.
Tresa Leola Bowen, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Assistant U.S. Attorney, Esquire, USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Social Security Administra tion, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-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). Accordingly, Bowen’s request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Tresa Leola Bowen appeals pro se from the district court's order denying her application to proceed in forma pau-peris ("IFP") in her action against the Commissioner of Social Security. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's determination that a complaint lacks arguable substance in law or fact, and for an abuse of discretion the denial of IFP. Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1868, 1369 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Bowen's IFP application after concluding that her complaint, which contained indecipherable facts and unsupported legal assertions, was frivolous. See id. at 1370 ("A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous[.]"); see also O'Loughlin v. John Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir.1990) ("An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in fact or law." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.