James K. Zaima, Jr., Plaintiff-appellant, v. Oahu Community Correctional Center, et al., Defendant-appellee, 29 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 29 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 1994) Submitted July 18, 1994. *Decided July 25, 1994

Before: FARRIS, KOZINSKI, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

James K. Zaima, Jr. appeals pro se the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action prior to issuance and service of process. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

We review for an abuse of discretion, Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992), and may affirm on any grounds supported by the record, O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990). A district court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint sua sponte "if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).

Here, in his application to proceed in forma pauperis, Zaima stated that he had $2,000 in a savings account. Although Zaima stated that he has a dependent, he is only required to pay $30/month for his care. The district court found that Zaima's allegation of poverty was untrue and dismissed his action as frivolous under section 1915(d).

Because the district court found Zaima's allegation of poverty untrue, dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) was not an abuse of discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324. We note, however, that dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) is not an adjudication on the merits and does not prejudice the filing of a paid complaint making the same allegations. See Denton, 112 S. Ct. at 1734.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

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

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.