Court Opinion

ID: 9640266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:01:58.234155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:28.747101
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRUCE WESTIN,                                   No. 22-55719

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:22-cv-03655-VBF-DFM

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
BANK OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                 Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      The motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Docket Entry No. 4) is

granted.

      Bruce Westin appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissing his action alleging

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to proceed IFP. Tripati v.

First Nat’l Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Westin’s IFP

request because Westin failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim

against either defendant. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

(explaining that, to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Tripati, 821 F.2d 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 or without

merit.”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                         22-55719