David Telstar v. Kathryn Vea Mary Rosa Robert Wandruff State of California

99 F.3d 1147 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. David TELSTAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathryn VEA; Mary Rosa; Robert Wandruff; State of California, Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-55188. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 7, 1996. * Decided Oct. 15, 1996. Before: BEEZER, KOZINSKI, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 David Telstar appeals pro se the district court's orders denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d) in Telstar's action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Telstar's First Amended Complaint 1 challenges the constitutionality of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1030 as applied during Superior Court divorce proceedings during which Telstar sought to set aside a default judgment against him. Telstar asserts that the Superior Court's order requiring him to post security pursuant to Section 1030 in the amount of $5,000 denied him meaningful access to the courts,…