Joshua B. Shapiro v. Oscar Guaroa Moquete;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSHUA B. SHAPIRO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OSCAR GUAROA MOQUETE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-56359
D.C. No. 8:14-cv-00550-UA-JEM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Joshua B. Shapiro appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging federal and state law claims in connection with an alleged eviction. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the
FILED
NOV 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

denial of leave to proceed IFP, and de novo a determination that a complaint lacks
arguable substance in law or fact. Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d
1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987). We reverse and remand.
The district court denied Shapiro’s application to proceed IFP because it
concluded that Shapiro’s complaint was subject to dismissal for failure to state a
claim. However, Shapiro’s complaint was not frivolous or without merit because it
alleged a cognizable Fourth Amendment claim. See id. at 1370 (“An in forma
pauperis complaint is frivolous if it had no arguable substance in law or fact.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); King v. Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825,
827-28 (9th Cir. 1986) (recognizing § 1983 cause of action against police officers
for violating Fourth Amendment where landlord called police to arrest tenants for
criminal trespass after rent dispute). Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s
IFP denial and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
14-56359 2

-- 2 of 2 --