Kenneth Andrew Friedman v. State of Montana

Good Law
891 F.2d 294·1989 WL 150049·1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 18419
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 1, 198988-4351California304 words

Opinion

Opinion

891 F.2d 294 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Kenneth Andrew FRIEDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA, et al., Defendant-Appellee. No. 88-4351. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 6, 1989. * Decided Dec. 1, 1989. Before ALARCON, O'SCANNLAIN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Kenneth Friedman appeals from the district court's order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d), denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We review such an order for abuse of discretion. Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1090 (1974). We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Friedman's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 3 An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if "it has no arguable substance in law or fact." Tripati v. First National Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.