Unpublished Disposition, 889 F.2d 1097 (9th Cir. 1989)Annotate this Case
James Thomas WESTBROOK, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendant-Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 30, 1989.* Decided Nov. 16, 1989.
Before ALARCON, O'SCANNLAIN and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
James Thomas Westbrook appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). We review the district court's denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis in civil cases for abuse of discretion. Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1090 (1974)).
A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit. Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370 (citing Reece v. Washington, 310 F.2d 139, 140 (9th Cir. 1962)). An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if "it had no arguable substance in law or fact." Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370 (quoting Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985)). Under this standard, Westbrook's complaint is clearly frivolous. Westbrook alleges that Los Angeles County has capriciously and flagrantly denied him his constitutional rights. He seeks immediate injunctive relief, an interlocutory action, and a "certiorari writ," but fails to allege any facts sufficient to enable us to discern a cause of action.
We can fathom no possible amendment that would cure the deficiencies, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Westbrook's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
The motion for reimbursement for expenses is denied.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit Rule 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3