Pedro Carvajal v. Los Angeles Police Department

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).
PDM/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO CARVAJAL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LOS ANGELES POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-56182
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-03431-UA-CW
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Alicemarie H. Stotler, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Carvajal, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis. We have
FILED
JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

PDM/Research 08-56182 2
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion,
O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Carvajal’s request
to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears from the face of the complaint that
the action is Heck-barred. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994)
(concluding that an action is not cognizable under § 1983 if “a judgment in favor
of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence
. . . unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already
been invalidated”); see also Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th
Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (concluding that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by denying in forma pauperis application where plaintiff lacked
standing, and complaint was barred by res judicata and judicial immunity).
Carvajal’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --