Texte intégral
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Bowen’s
request for oral argument is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TRESA LEOLA BOWEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner for
Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-55935
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01619-UA-SS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Tresa Leola Bowen appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her
application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in her action against the
FILED
OCT 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
11-55935 2
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 1368, 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.
-- 2 of 2 --