Case Name: Steven THORESON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Zahed AHMED, CTF Dr., Individual Capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-04
Citations: 586 F. App'x 405
Docket Number: No. 13-17026
Parties: Steven THORESON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Zahed AHMED, CTF Dr., Individual Capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 586
Pages: 405–405

Head Matter:
Steven THORESON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Zahed AHMED, CTF Dr., Individual Capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-17026.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
Filed Dec. 4, 2014.
Steven Thoreson, McFarland, CA, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Steven Thoreson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district, court's order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, James v. Madison St. Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 27 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thoreson's motion to proceed IFP because Thoreson failed to submit a certified copy of his prisoner trust fund account statements for the previous six months as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). See Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir.2000) ("[PJrisoner-plaintiffs seeking to proceed in forma pau-peris [must] submit a certified copy of their prisoner trust fund account statement for the previous six months.").
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thoreson's post-judgment motion because Thoreson did not identify any new evidence, change in law, clear error, or other basis for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and factors for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and 60(b)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.