Richardson v. Quintana, 112912 FED9, 11-55902

Docket Nº:11-55902
Party Name:BRYAN KEITH RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:November 29, 2012
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

BRYAN KEITH RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-55902

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

November 29, 2012

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted November 13, 2012 [**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California No. 5:11-cv-00420-UA-AGR, George H. King, Chief Judge, Presiding

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Federal prisoner Bryan Keith Richardson appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Names Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an 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 Richardson's motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the complaint shows that the action is without merit. See id. at 616-17; see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 475-76, 486 (1995) (prisoner has no due process right to present witnesses at prison disciplinary proceeding where no atypical hardship imposed).

Richardson's contention that the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP