Charles H. Farley v. County of Los Angeles

999 F.2d 542 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Charles H. FARLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-55017. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 2, 1993. * Decided July 22, 1993. 1 Before: CHOY, GOODWIN, and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Charles H. Farley appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil rights case. The court ruled that Farley made an inadequate showing of both indigency and federal jurisdiction. The court's order is reviewable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988). Tripati v. First National Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.1987). DISCUSSION 4 A federal court may authorize the commencement or prosecution of any action without prepayment of fees or costs "by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs." 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a) (1988). The district court has broad discretion to…