Opinion
Because the panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, Tate's motion for oral argument is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis sued United States. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Carolyn R. Dimmick, J., dismissed complaint. Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals held that dismissal was warranted under statute governing proceedings in forma pauperis.
Affirmed.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Carolyn R. Dimmick, District Judge, Presiding.
Before KOZINSKI, T.G. NELSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Earnest L. Tate appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154, 119 S.Ct. 1058, 143 L.Ed.2d 63 (1999). We affirm.
On August 13, 1997, the district court certified that this appeal is not taken in good faith, and revoked appellant's in forma pauperis status. This court, however, did not receive notification of the district court's certification until June 7, 2001. Based on these circumstances, we conclude that appellant is entitled to in forma pauperis status for this appeal.
Because the statute of limitations is a complete defense which appears on the face of the Tate's pleadings, the district court did not err in dismissing his complaint.
Page 727.
See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir.1984).
AFFIRMED.