Michael D. Lee v. Riverside County District Attorneys Office Grace Brouilette Christine Albertine

17 F.3d 395 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Michael D. LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE; Grace BROUILETTE; Christine ALBERTINE, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-55228. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 7, 1994. * Decided Feb. 17, 1994. Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Michael D. Lee appeals pro se the district court's order denying him permission to proceed without prepayment of the filing fees. The district court denied Lee permission to proceed without prepayment of the filing fees because Lee's complaint failed to comply with Local Rule 3.7.1 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Central District of California; 1 failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); and stated no basis for federal jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We review the district court's denial for an abuse of discretion, O'Loughlin v.…