Hamid Hejazi v. Oregon Supreme Court ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
DEC 22 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAMID MICHAEL HEJAZI, No. 20-35151
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:19-cv-01667-HZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
OREGON SUPREME COURT, public
entity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Hamid Michael Hejazi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims for failure to pay the
filing fee after the district court denied his application to proceed in forma
pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
of discretion the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis. O’Loughlin v. Doe,
920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We may affirm on any basis supported by the
record. Id. at 617. We affirm.
Denial of Hejazi’s request to proceed in forma pauperis was not an abuse of
discretion because the allegations in Hejazi’s complaint were frivolous and without
merit. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[The] term ‘frivolous,’
when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion,
but also the fanciful factual allegation.”); O’Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617 (defining
“frivolous” as having no arguable basis in fact or law); Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank
& Tr., 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.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hejazi’s motion for
reconsideration because Hejazi failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.
2