Unpublished Disposition, 917 F.2d 27 (9th Cir. 1990)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 917 F.2d 27 (9th Cir. 1990)

Frank BARELA, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.STATE OF ARIZONA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 89-16461.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 23, 1990.* Decided Oct. 25, 1990.

Before HUG, NELSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM** 

Frank Barela appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his civil rights action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). We review de novo, Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989), and affirm.

Frivolous in forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact." Id. Generally, the district court must afford a pro se plaintiff notice of the deficiencies of the complaint and leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the complaint's deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987).

Barela's complaint alleged that the state improperly deprived him of custody of his daughter. The district court did not err in dismissing the complaint as frivolous because the complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact and is not curable by amendment. Under the eleventh amendment the state of Arizona is immune from suits brought in federal court, see Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984), and the complaint's factual allegations are clearly baseless, see Neitzke, 109 S. Ct. at 1833.

AFFIRMED.1 

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, Barela's requests for oral argument are denied

 **

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

 1

Barela's nine-page document titled "Memorandum," received by this court on April 4, 1990, is construed as his opening brief and is considered filed as of the date it was received

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.