STEVEN THORESON V. AHMED, No. 13-17026 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 4 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVEN THORESON, No. 13-17026 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01943-RS v. MEMORANDUM* ZAHED AHMED, CTF Dr., Individual Capacity; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Steven Thoreson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, James v. Madison St. Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 27 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thoreson’s motion to proceed IFP because Thoreson failed to submit a certified copy of his prisoner trust fund account statements for the previous six months as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). See Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[P]risoner-plaintiffs seeking to proceed in forma pauperis [must] submit a certified copy of their prisoner trust fund account statement for the previous six months.”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thoreson’s postjudgment motion because Thoreson did not identify any new evidence, change in law, clear error, or other basis for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and factors for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)). AFFIRMED. 2 13-17026

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.