Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
11-16294•Alton Parker White v. United States Postal Service;
11-16294Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit10.01.2012
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALTON PARKER WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16294
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00773-GMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Alton Parker White appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying
his applications to proceed in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to proceed
FILED
JAN 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
11-16294 2
in forma pauperis. Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th
Cir. 1987). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying White’s
applications to proceed in forma pauperis because White failed to demonstrate
indigence in light of the income reported in his financial affidavits. See Rowland v.
Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993) (an individual is indigent under 28
U.S.C. § 1915 if he is unable to pay fees and still provide the necessities of life for
himself and any dependents).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying White’s motion for
reconsideration because White failed to establish a basis for reconsideration. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). To the extent that White identified “newly discovered”
information, the district court considered that information as part of White’s
second application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
White’s remaining contentions, including those concerning bias, are
unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.