Rodriguez v. Steck
Decision Date | 06 August 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 15–55654.,15–55654. |
Citation | 795 F.3d 1187 |
Parties | Guillermo RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. J. STECK, individual and official capacity ; B. Speer, individual and official capacity ; B. Mummert, individual and official capacity ; L. Westphal, individual and official capacity ; J. Reed, individual and official capacity ; J. Javaux, individual and official capacity ; R. Viles, individual and official capacity ; S. Johnson, individual and official capacity ; M. Rocha; E. Valenzuela, Warden, individual and official capacity ; K.J. Allen, individual and official capacity ; R.L. Briggs, individual and official capacity ; and Jeffrey Beard, individual and official capacity, Defendants–Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Guillermo Rodriguez, pro se, Maywood, CA, Plaintiff–Appellant.
No appearance for Defendants–Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:15–cv–02287–VAP (JEM).
Before: MARY M. SCHROEDER, WILLIAM C. CANBY, JR., and ALEX KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Guillermo Rodriguez appeals pro se the district court's order denying his request to file the action in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.1987). We vacate and remand.
Rodriguez brought a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. The district court denied Rodriguez leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it found that the complaint was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. This disposition operated as a dismissal of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir.2008).
We have held that a district court's denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis is an abuse of discretion unless the district court first provides a plaintiff leave to amend the complaint or finds that amendment would be futile. See Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Airline Serv. Providers Ass'n v. L.A. World Airports
...spillover effects that might substantiate their claim that, in reality, section 25 acts as a regulation. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Steck, 795 F.3d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting that leave to amend should be granted liberally, particularly when defects in the complaint could be cured by s......
-
Bryant v. Tulare Cnty.
...the district court first provides a plaintiff leave to amend the complaint or finds that amendment would be futile." Rodriguez v. Steck, 795 F.3d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2015); see Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370. If a court denies a motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the complaint is frivo......
-
Ward v. Batra
... ... Murphy, 745 ... F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) (citation & internal ... quotation marks omitted); see also Rodriguez v ... Steck, 795 F.3d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2015) (order); ... Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) ... (“A ... ...
-
Woodruff v. Villalobos
...the district court first provides a plaintiff leave to amend the complaint or finds that amendment would be futile." Rodriguez v. Steck, 795 F.3d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2015); see Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370. If a court denies a motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the complaint is frivo......