Unpublished Disposition, 928 F.2d 1137 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Johnson appeals the district court's denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on his complaint against Lucky Stores, Inc. alleging discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq. A denial of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is a reviewable order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Roberts v. United States District Court, 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950); Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987). We review the denial for abuse of discretion. O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1990). To reverse we must have a definite and firm conviction that the district court "committed a clear error of judgment or acted in an arbitrary fashion unjustified by the situation and circumstances of the case." Id.

The order denying Johnson's motion consists of a one page pre-printed form on which the district court indicated that it was adopting the recommendation of the United States Magistrate. The Magistrate filled out the pre-printed form as follows:

Inadequate showing of indigency

x No federal jurisdiction

The Magistrate also included the following handwritten statements alongside the above factors:

1. COMPLAINT FAILS TO INDICATE SPECIFIC INCIDENTS OF DISCRIMINATION. COMPLAINT FAILS TO INDICATE TO WHAT CLASS PLAINTIFF BELONGS

2. NO RIGHT TO SUE LETTER HAS BEEN ATTACHED TO THE COMPLAINT

It appears that the district court denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground that Johnson had failed to establish federal jurisdiction.

A plaintiff bringing suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 must obtain an EEOC right to sue letter, attach that letter to his complaint, and file the complaint within nineth days of receipt of the letter. See Cleveland v. Douglas Aircraft Company, 509 F.2d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir. 1975); Wong v. Bon Marche, 508 F.2d 1249, 1250-51 (9th Cir. 1975). These requirements are jurisdictional. Id.

Johnson failed to attach a right to sue letter to his complaint or to refer to a right to sue letter in his complaint. He therefore failed to establish jurisdiction in the district court over his claim under Sec. 2000e-5. Johnson's complaint also failed to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction in the district court over his Sec. 1981 claim. See Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 109 S. Ct. 2363, 2372-2373 (1989). The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson's application to proceed in forma pauperis.

AFFIRMED.