Calhoun v. Stahl, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
Decision Date | 11 June 2001 |
Docket Number | DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,No. 00-56216,PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,00-56216 |
Citation | 254 F.3d 845 |
Parties | (9th Cir. 2001) JESSE J. CALHOUN,, v. DONALD N. STAHL; JAMES BRAZELTON, |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Jesse J. Calhoun, pro se, for the plaintiff-appellant. No appearance by the defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-05648-TJH
Before: Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Barry G. Silverman, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
We review denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis for an abuse of discretion. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Because Calhoun's complaint sought monetary relief for actions taken in the course of employment by persons who are immune from suit, the district court properly denied in forma pauperis status. See Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 49 (1998) (legislators); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (judges and prosecutors).
Although Calhoun correctly contends that portions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act are not applicable to civil detainees, see Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000), the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners, cf. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). The district court therefore properly concluded that Calhoun's complaint should not be allowed to proceed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) ( ).
We have considered Calhoun's remaining contentions and deny them as lacking merit.
AFFIRMED.
*. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and denies Calhoun's request for additional time to respond to the screening letter. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Renfro v. J.G. Boswell Co.
...1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. United State......
-
Vongsvirates v. Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs.
...1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. United State......
-
Nichols v. Logan
...relief may be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir.2001). Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant Garcia for her capacity as the Warden of the prison where the incident o......
-
Williams v. County of Fresno, 1:21-cv-00648-AWI-SAB
...... forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by. prisoners); Calhoun v. Stahl , 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis proceedings. ......