Court Opinion

ID: 9891815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 18:00:46.584512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.718276
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 18 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERARD BELL,                                    No. 23-35017

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:22-cv-05613-DGE

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM *
WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT;
WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS,
Division II; PIERCE COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT; CITY OF TACOMA,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Washington
                   David G. Estudillo, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted October 10, 2023**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Gerard Bell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his

request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action alleging due process and other claims. We have jurisdiction under 28

      *
             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).
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 Bell’s request to

proceed IFP because Bell failed to allege facts in his proposed amended complaint

sufficient to state a plausible claim against the defendants. 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 or without

merit.”); see also 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).

       We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

       We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United

States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

       AFFIRMED.

                                             2                                      23-35017