Summary
noting that Rule 60(b) is not a substitute for 60(b)
Summary of this case from Shaw v. Sacramento Cnty. Sheriff's Dep'tOpinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Robert L. Jarrett, Jr., Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Consuelo B. Marshall, Chief Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-02311-CBM.
Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
In these consolidated appeals, Robert L. Jarrett, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court's orders denying his applications to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jarrett's applications for IFP on the ground that his complaint was "legally and/or factually patently frivolous" and failed to state a cognizable claim. See id. at 617 (upholding district court's denial of in forma pauperis status upon its determination that the case is frivolous or lacks merit).
There is no merit to Jarrett's contention that the magistrate judge lacked authority to deny his motion for IFP, because the order was entered by the district court upon the recommendation of the magistrate judge. See Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 n. 1 (9th Cir.1998).
Jarrett's remaining contentions are without merit.
AFFIRMED.