HAMID HEJAZI V. EUGENE MISSION, No. 20-35150 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAMID MICHAEL HEJAZI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-35150 D.C. No. 6:19-cv-01800-HZ MEMORANDUM* EUGENE MISSION, AKA Eugene Mission, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Hamid Michael Hejazi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims for failure to pay the filing fee after the district court denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). of discretion the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Id. at 617. We affirm. Denial of Hejazi’s request to proceed in forma pauperis was not an abuse of discretion because the allegations in Hejazi’s complaint were frivolous and without merit. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[The] term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.”); O’Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617 (defining “frivolous” as having no arguable basis in fact or law); Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987) (“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.”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hejazi’s motion for reconsideration because Hejazi failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration). AFFIRMED. 2

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.