Usman Shehu Sule, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Joseph H. Crabtree, Warden, Fci Sheridan; Robert L.mathews, Director Bureau of Prisons, et al.,defendants-appellees, 5 F.3d 540 (9th Cir. 1993)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Usman Sule, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) of his action against the defendants, federal prison officials, for money damages.¹  We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992), and affirm.

Frivolous in forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Id. at 325.

Sule contends that he is unlawfully confined because the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") "had no statutory authority to admit a 'person' to any facility or institution of the Bureau of Prisons, other than 18 U.S.C. § 401 for a person held in civil contempt." The district court found, and we agree, that "contrary to the Plaintiff's assertion, the BOP's authority to house inmates is not limited to those defendants convicted of civil contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401." See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3621 (providing statutory authority under which inmates may be committed to the custody of the BOP); see also, 18 U.S.C. § 4042 (BOP shall provide suitable quarters and provide for the protection of all persons convicted of offenses against the United States). Therefore, the district court did not err by holding that Sule's claim that the BOP's prison population must be limited to civil contemners lacked an arguable basis in law. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Sule's action as frivolous. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. at 1734.

AFFIRMED.