Unpublished Disposition, 904 F.2d 41 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Kamal Mahdavi appeals pro se the district court's order denying him leave to file his complaint on the ground that his proposed action lacked merit. Mahdavi had previously filed a series of complaints in district court, and Judge Peckham had entered an order requiring that Mahdavi obtain leave of the court before filing any future complaints. Pursuant to that order, Mahdavi sought leave to file the discrimination complaint at issue here in forma pauperis. Judge Peckham denied the application and Mahdavi appeals.

A plaintiff's ability to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters is a privilege, not an absolute right. Weller v. Dickenson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1963); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The district court has broad discretion to deny a plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis in civil cases. See Collins v. Pitchess, 641 F.2d 740, 742 (9th Cir. 1981); Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1090 (1974). An appellate court will reverse a district court's denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis only when there has been an abuse of discretion. See Tripati v. First Nat. Bank and Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987); Dugan v. Lumpkin, 640 F.2d 189 (9th Cir. 1979).

Before attempting to file this complaint Mahdavi had already previously filed numerous meritless complaints. In this case it is apparent that to succeed on the merits of this claim, Mahdavi would have to persuade the trier-of-fact to reach a conclusion contrary to that reached by the EEOC as a result of its investigation. He failed to allege any facts, however, either in the complaint or in his brief before this court, which would indicate that he could satisfy that burden. Discovery provides plaintiffs the opportunity to obtain evidence from sources previously unavailable to them. Here, Mahdavi had the benefit of an EEOC investigation and had access to the record of that investigation.

Under such circumstances, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to authorize the filing of this complaint in forma pauperis.

AFFIRMED.