Case Name: Santiago SOTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keith A. SUGAR, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-28
Citations: 459 F. App'x 674
Docket Number: No. 10-16110
Parties: Santiago SOTO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Keith A. SUGAR, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 459
Pages: 674–674

Head Matter:
Santiago SOTO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Keith A. SUGAR, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 10-16110.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 2011.
Filed Nov. 28, 2011.
Santiago Soto, Represa, CA, pro se.
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, 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
Santiago Soto, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his former court-appointed attorney violated his right to access the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990), and a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002). We vacate and remand.
The district court denied Soto's application to proceed in forma pauperis because Soto failed to submit the required six-month prisoner trust fund account statement as part of his application. It then dismissed the action without prejudice because Soto failed to comply with its order to pay the filing fee or submit a completed Prisoner's In Forma Pauperis Application. However, a review of the record shows that Soto filed a certified six-month prisoner trust fund account statement on September 28, 2009 and the remainder of his application on October 8, 2009. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand to the district court for further proceedings.
Soto shall bear his own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.