Andre Brigham Young v. Jeffrey Needle

978 F.2d 717 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Andre Brigham YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffrey NEEDLE, Defendant-Appellee. No. 89-35341. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 22, 1992. * Decided Oct. 19, 1992. Before GOODWIN, D.W. NELSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Andre Young, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action against Jeffrey Needle, the attorney in Young's habeas action, as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d). We review for an abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1730 (1992). We affirm. 1 3 Frivolous in forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d). Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact." Id. A district court must afford a pro se plaintiff notice of the…