254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Calhoun v. Stahl

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Jun 20, 2001

254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001)

Summary

holding 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) screening applies to non-prisoners proceeding IFP

Summary of this case from Yenovkian v. Gulian

See 25 Summaries

Opinion

No. 00-56216.

Submitted June 11, 2001.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and denies Calhoun's request for additional time to respond to the screening letter. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed June 20, 2001

Jesse J. Calhoun, pro se, for the plaintiff-appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-05648-TJH.

Before: O'SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We review denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis for an abuse of discretion. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Because Calhoun's complaint sought monetary relief for actions taken in the course of employment by persons who are immune from suit, the district court properly denied in forma pauperis status. See Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 49, 118 S.Ct. 966, 140 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998) (legislators); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (judges and prosecutors).

Although Calhoun correctly contends that portions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act are not applicable to civil detainees, see Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000), the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners, cf. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). The district court therefore properly concluded that Calhoun's complaint should not be allowed to proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) (requiring dismissal of in forma pauperis proceedings that seek monetary relief against immune defendants).

We have considered Calhoun's remaining contentions and deny them as lacking merit.

AFFIRMED.

Summaries of

Calhoun v. Stahl

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Jun 20, 2001

254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001)

holding 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) screening applies to non-prisoners proceeding IFP

Summary of this case from Yenovkian v. Gulian

holding 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) screening applies to non-prisoners proceeding IFP

Summary of this case from Finnegan v. Shield

holding 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) screening applies to non-prisoners proceeding IFP

Summary of this case from Fenton v. Kirk

holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners"

Summary of this case from Ballering v. All State Attorney Generals & Lemon Law Dep'ts

holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners"

Summary of this case from Scutt v. Dorris

holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners"

Summary of this case from Scutt v. Dorris

holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners"

Summary of this case from Scutt v. Carbonaro CPAs n Mgmt Grp

holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners."

Summary of this case from Fisher v. Graham

holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners."

Summary of this case from Vaught v. Phillips

holding that § 1915(e)(B)'s screening requirements also apply to non-prisoners proceeding or seeking to proceed IFP

Summary of this case from Meniooh v. Humboldt Cnty.

holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners"

Summary of this case from Jeffries v. Grocery

holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners"

Summary of this case from Clervrain v. Marín

holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners"

Summary of this case from Kaneapua v. Cnty. of Kauai

holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners."

Summary of this case from Sanchez-Rivera v. Bribiesca

holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners."

Summary of this case from Ollison v. Cnty. of San Diego

holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners."

Summary of this case from Sanchez-Rivera v. Bribiesca

holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners"

Summary of this case from Milare v. U.S. Dep't of HHS

holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners"

Summary of this case from Scutt v. Haw. Unemployment Ins. Div.

holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners"

Summary of this case from Scutt v. Kaiser Permanente Wailuku Med. Office

holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners"

Summary of this case from Scutt v. Kaiser Permanente Wailuku Med. Office

holding 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) is not limited to prisoners

Summary of this case from Michael F. v. Saul

holding that the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners

Summary of this case from Evans v. Fid. Brokerage Servs. LLC

holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners"

Summary of this case from Emrit v. Nat'l Football League

holding that the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners

Summary of this case from Dagatan v. Progressive Auto Ins. Co.

holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) are not limited to prisoners."

Summary of this case from Davis v. San Diego Police Dep't

Calhoun v. Stahl

Summary

Opinion

Calhoun v. Stahl

Calhoun v. Stahl

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Calhoun v. Stahl

Summary

Opinion

Calhoun v. Stahl

Calhoun v. Stahl

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations