From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marin v. Hahn

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 24, 2008
271 F. App'x 578 (9th Cir. 2008)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he “failed to verify his poverty.”

Summary of this case from Amafa v. Nevada
See 16 Summaries

Opinion

No. 06-56042.

Submitted March 18, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed March 24, 2008.

Mel Marin, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Napoleon A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-00990-NAJ.

Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Mel Marin appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Marin's request to proceed in forma pauperis because Marin failed to verify his poverty adequately. See United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (holding that motion made under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 was properly denied where "appellants were unable, or unwilling, to verify their poverty.").

AFFIRMED.

Summaries of

Marin v. Hahn

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 24, 2008
271 F. App'x 578 (9th Cir. 2008)

finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he “failed to verify his poverty.”

Summary of this case from Amafa v. Nevada

finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he "failed to verify his poverty adequately"

Summary of this case from Khan v. Saul

finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he "failed to verify his poverty adequately"

Summary of this case from Lerner v. Adesa Nev., LLC

finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he "failed to verify his poverty adequately"

Summary of this case from Marshall v. Saul

finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he "failed to verify his poverty adequately"

Summary of this case from Curtis v. Univ. Med. Ctr.

finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he "failed to verify his poverty adequately"

Summary of this case from Curtis v. Home Depot

finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he "failed to verify his poverty adequately"

Summary of this case from Gibson v. Teamsters 631 Union

finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he "failed to verify his poverty adequately"

Summary of this case from Sarabia v. La Familia Auto Repair & Sales

finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he "failed to verify his poverty adequately"

Summary of this case from Brunson v. Soc. Sec.

finding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he "failed to verify his poverty adequately"

Summary of this case from Albra v. Selene Fin.

finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's IFP request because he "failed to verify his poverty adequately"

Summary of this case from DuPree v. Ceasars Entm't

finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis because he "failed to verify his poverty adequately"

Summary of this case from Mitchell v. Am. / US Airways Airline

finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis because he "failed to verify his poverty adequately"

Summary of this case from Magnetic v. Togglioti

affirming the district court's denial of in forma pauperis for failure to verify poverty

Summary of this case from Marin v. Wells Fargo, N.A.

affirming the district court's denial of in forma pauperis for failure to verify poverty

Summary of this case from Marin v. Escondido Care Ctr.

affirming the district court's denial of in forma pauperis for failure to verify poverty

Summary of this case from Marin v. Escondido Care Ctr.
Case details for

Marin v. Hahn

Case Details

Full title:Mel MARIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pat HAHN; et al., Defendants-Appellees

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 24, 2008

Citations

271 F. App'x 578 (9th Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

Yenovkian v. Capital One Fin. Corp.

If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her poverty, district courts have the discretion to…

Woods v. Store Front/ Valley Behavioral Health

If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her poverty, district courts have the discretion to…

109 Citing Cases