McInerney

McInerney v. San Francisco Housing Authority

Good Law
196 F. App'x 485
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 1, 2006Nos. 04-17374, 05-16182, 05-16281California467 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

These three pro se appeals arise from Joseph McInerney’s housing discrimination action against the San Francisco Housing Authority and numerous others, including state court judges. In No. 04-17374, McInerney appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). In No. 05-16182, he challenges the district court’s order dismissing claims as to 24 defendants who were not properly served with his complaint. In No. 05-16281, he appeals from the district court’s orders striking his amended complaint and terminating the action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of IFP status. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990). We review a dismissal de novo, and we may affirm on any basis fairly supported by the record. Vestar Dev. II v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 249 F.3d 958, 960 (9th Cir.2001).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McInerney’s IFP application because the application showed that he received regular income, and the court took McInerney’s limited means into consideration by reducing the filing fee to $25. See 28 U.S.C. §…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.