John Steelman v. Matthew Cate;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOHN STEELMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MATTHEW CATE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-56770
D.C. No. 5:08-cv-01321-UA-RZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
John Steelman, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his request to proceed without prepayment of filing fees. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion,
FILED
MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

DS/Research 08-56770 2
Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987), and we
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Steelman’s request
to proceed without prepayment of filing fees because the claims in the complaint
were based only on “contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or
indeed may not occur at all,” and therefore were not ripe. Scott v. Pasadena
Unified Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 646, 662 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted); see also Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370 (“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.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --