Buddy Joe Barnard v. Fresno Police Dept., Geoffery L. Hayden, Deputy City Attorney Police Legal Advisor

944 F.2d 908 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Buddy Joe BARNARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRESNO POLICE DEPT., Geoffery L. Hayden, Deputy City Attorney Police legal advisor, Defendant-Appellee. No. 89-16227. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 5, 1991. * Decided Sept. 11, 1991. Before CANBY, DAVID R. THOMPSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Buddy Joe Barnard, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d). We review de novo, Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1989), and affirm. 3 Frivolous in forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact." Id. at 325 . Before dismissing a complaint, the district court must give a pro se…