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. NevadaOpinion
No. 06-56042.
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.").