Kevin William King v. County of Los Angeles; Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN WILLIAM KING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFFS
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-56473
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-04813-UA-VBK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Kevin William King appeals pro se from
the district court’s order denying him leave to file his complaint in forma pauperis.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
FILED
MAR 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

discretion. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We reverse and
remand.
While the grant or denial of a request to proceed in forma pauperis is
discretionary, the district court’s mere statement that King “may request the Court
to allow him to amend [the complaint in another pending action] to add any new
allegations” is not an adequate basis for denying King’s request to proceed in
forma pauperis in this action. See Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d
1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987) (“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.”).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
2 13-56473

-- 2 of 2 --