22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4da,MEMORANDUM Tresa Leola Bowen appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her application to proceed in forma pau-peris (“IFP”) in her action against the Commissioner of Social Security. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s determination that a complaint lacks arguable substance in law or fact, and for an abuse of discretion the denial of IFP. Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1868 , 1369 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm. The district court properly denied Bowen’s IFP application after concluding that her complaint, which contained indecipherable facts and unsupported legal assertions, was frivolous. See id. at 1370 (“A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous[.]”); see also O’Loughlin v. John Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir.1990) (“An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in fact or law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T50c,

MEMORANDUM

Tresa Leola Bowen appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her application to proceed in forma pau-peris (“IFP”) in her action against the Commissioner of Social Security. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s determination that a complaint lacks arguable substance in law or fact, and for an abuse of discretion the denial of IFP. Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1868 , 1369 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Bowen’s IFP application after concluding that her complaint, which contained indecipherable facts and unsupported legal assertions, was frivolous. See id. at 1370 (“A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous[.]”); see also O’Loughlin v. John Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir.1990) (“An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in fact or law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.