Unpublished Disposition, 921 F.2d 279 (9th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 921 F.2d 279 (9th Cir. 1990)

Frank BARELA, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.James A. BAKER, III, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 90-15207.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 18, 1990.* Decided Dec. 20, 1990.

Before GOODWIN, Chief Judge, and SCHROEDER and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.


Frank Barela appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Barela contends the district court erred in failing to enjoin a matter pending in the Municipal Court of Arizona. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989), and affirm.

Under section 1915(d), a district court may dismiss frivolous in forma pauperis complaints sua sponte. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Jackson, 885 F.2d at 640. A frivolous claim is one which lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). A pro se litigant must be given an opportunity to amend the complaint before dismissal, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).

Federal courts are generally prohibited from issuing injunctions to stay state court proceedings, with limited exceptions that do not apply in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 2283. Moreover, James Baker is not a proper defendant with respect to the relief Barela seeks. It is clear that the deficiencies of Barela's complaint could not be cured by amendment. See Noll, 809 F.2d at 1448. Thus, because the complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, the district court did not err in dismissing the action as frivolous.1 



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 Circuit R. 36-3


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


Barela's motion for discovery is denied