22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T443,MEMORANDUM Jeanetta Craney appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in her action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion and may affirm on any basis supported by the record. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616-17 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm. Denial of Craney’s motion to proceed IFP was not an abuse of discretion because Craney’s complaint is frivolous. See Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 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.”); see also O’Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617 (“An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in fact or law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T470,

MEMORANDUM

Jeanetta Craney appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in her action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion and may affirm on any basis supported by the record. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616-17 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.

Denial of Craney’s motion to proceed IFP was not an abuse of discretion because Craney’s complaint is frivolous. See Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 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.”); see also O’Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617 (“An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in fact or law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.