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:T440,MEMORANDUM Former California state prisoner Kevin William King appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying him leave to file his complaint in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990). We reverse and remand. While the grant or denial of a request to proceed in forma pauperis is discretionary, the district court’s mere statement that King “may request the Court to allow him to amend [the complaint in another pending action] to add any new allegations” is not an adequate basis for denying King’s request to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. 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.”). REVERSED and REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T46d,

MEMORANDUM

Former California state prisoner Kevin William King appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying him leave to file his complaint in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990). We reverse and remand.

While the grant or denial of a request to proceed in forma pauperis is discretionary, the district court’s mere statement that King “may request the Court to allow him to amend [the complaint in another pending action] to add any new allegations” is not an adequate basis for denying King’s request to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. 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.”).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

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