Dennis R. Hopkins v. Tacoma Municipal Court;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENNIS R. HOPKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TACOMA MUNICIPAL COURT; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-35130
D.C. No. CV-07-05621-RBL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 10, 2010**
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Dennis Hopkins appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of
discretion a denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Calhoun v. Stahl, 254
F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam), and a dismissal for failure to follow the
FILED
AUG 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-35130 2
district court’s order to pay the filing fee, Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983,
986 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hopkins’s
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis because Hopkins did not account
for his different statements regarding his employment history or otherwise verify
his claim of poverty. See United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir.
1981) (per curiam).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hopkins’s
complaint because Hopkins did not comply with the district court’s previous order
to pay the filing fee. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 986.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --