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:T527,MEMORANDUM Michael Woodmore, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his request to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Tri pati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.1987), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Woodmore’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears from the face of the complaint that the action is Hec/c-barred. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (concluding that an action is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence ... unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”); see also Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370 (“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.”). Woodmore’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T559,

MEMORANDUM

Michael Woodmore, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his request to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Tri pati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.1987), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Woodmore’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears from the face of the complaint that the action is Hec/c-barred. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (concluding that an action is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence ... unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”); see also Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370 (“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.”).

Woodmore’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED.

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