Wiideman v. Perez

Full title: Randall N. WIIDEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRANK PEREZ, individually and…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 24, 1989

880 F.2d 417 (9th Cir. 1989)

Opinion

880 F.2d 417 (9th Cir. 1989) Randall N. WIIDEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRANK PEREZ, individually and as an agent of Clark County, Nevada; Steve Wolfson, individually and as an agent of the District Attorney of Clark County, Nevada; Robert Miller, individually and as an agent of Clark County, Nevada; Office of the District Attorney; County of Clark; Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; John Moran, individually and as an agent of Clark County, Nevada; State of Nevada, John Does I through V, Defendants-Appellees,and City of Las Vegas, Defendant. No. 86-1601. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit May 24, 1989

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Decided July 18, 1989.

As Amended July 26, 1989.

D.Nev.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Roger D. Foley, Senior District Judge, Presiding.

Before TANG, NELSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.

Randall N. Wiideman, Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order denying his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Wiideman's complaint raises arguable questions of law as to whether there was a valid subpoena issued to seize documents from the post office box in question and, as to whether police officer Perez and district attorney Wolfson were exceeding the scope of their duties. It is not frivolous within the meaning of Section 1915(d). Neitzke v. Williams, 57 U.S.L.W. 4493, 4496-97 (May 1, 1989).

The affidavit submitted by Wiideman supports his claim of indigency.

The judgment is reversed and remanded with instructions to allow Wiideman to file his complaint.

REVERSED and REMANDED.