Unpublished Disposition, 919 F.2d 144 (9th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 919 F.2d 144 (9th Cir. 1990)

Kenneth Eugene GAGE, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Ernest R. HAWKINS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-15806.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 27, 1990.* Decided Nov. 29, 1990.

Before WALLACE, DAVID R. THOMPSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Kenneth Eugene Gage, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se and in forma pauperis the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). We review de novo, Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989), and affirm.

Frivolous in forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Nietzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact." Id. In civil rights cases where the plaintiff appears pro se, we liberally construe pleadings and afford the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988).

In his complaint, Gage, who is serving a life term without possibility of parole, challenges the Registrar of Voters' refusal to permit him to register to vote. Gage sought an order directing the Registrar to permit him to register, or in the alternative, the return of all taxes paid during his imprisonment until his right to vote is restored. Gage's claims rest on the premise that no citizen subject to taxation shall be denied the right to vote. However, the disenfranchisement of convicted felons has been found to be constitutional by the United States Supreme Court. See Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24, 53-54 (1974); cf. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984). Hence, Gage's claim lacks an arguable basis in law and fact, and the district court did not err in dismissing his claim. See Nietzke, 109 S. Ct. at 1831 (1989).

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition 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.