Unpublished Disposition, 904 F.2d 711 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Frances Zamnik, plaintiff-appellant, appeals the district court's order denying her request to proceed in forma pauperis in her action against defendants-appellees. We affirm.

Contrary to appellees' claims, the denial of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is appealable under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291. Roberts v. United States Dist. Ct., 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950); Lipscomb v. United States, 301 F.2d 905 (9th Cir. 1962). Furthermore, appellant's petition for leave to appeal, filed thirty-six days after the district court's order, is timely, because it appears that an officer (Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") security guards) or agency (HUD) of the United States is a party. See Fed.R.App.Proc. 4(a) (1).

"An order refusing to grant the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil action must be affirmed unless it appears that the discretion vested in the district court ... has been abused." Benn v. Borden's Starlac Dry Milk Product, 438 F.2d 523, 523 (9th Cir. 1971) (citing Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir. 1968)).

At the time of appellant's filing of the complaint in the present appeal, appellant had previously filed suit in the district court, which the court had dismissed because it violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires a short and plain statement of the claim. The appeal of this dismissal was then pending before this Court.¹ 

The district court found that this second complaint was "legally frivolous," citing Williams, as it "contain [ed] similar allegations and alleg [ed] the same underlying facts." We agree and find appellant's arguments to the contrary to be without merit. Therefore, the district court properly found that the complaint in the present appeal was legally frivolous and did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's request. See Williams, 394 F.2d at 332.

AFFIRMED.