Ian Lamonte Cormier v. Riverside County District Attorney Office

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IAN LAMONTE CORMIER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OFFICE; LEON X., Deputy
Sheriff (Detective), individual/official
capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-56268
D.C. No. 5:21-cv-01654-SVW-AFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Cormier’s motion for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status (Docket Entry No. 3)
is granted. The Clerk will amend the docket to reflect this status. The Clerk will
file the Opening Brief at Docket Entry No. 5.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAY 31 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-56268
Ian LaMonte Cormier appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his motion to proceed IFP and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
various claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Tripati v.
First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987). We review de
novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Leeson v. Transamerica
Disability Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court did not err by denying Cormier’s request to proceed IFP
and dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the federal
claims were too insubstantial to confer jurisdiction. See Tripati, 821 F.2d 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 or
without merit.”); Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342
(9th Cir. 1981) (sua sponte dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is proper where claims
are “wholly insubstantial and frivolous”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --