Michael Woodmore v. State Bar Chief Trial Counsel, individual;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MICHAEL WOODMORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE BAR CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL,
individual; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-55623
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01692-UA-AGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Michael Woodmore, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s order denying his request to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse
FILED
MAR 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

DS/Research 09-55623 2
of discretion, 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 Woodmore’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 42 U.S.C. § 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 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.”).
Woodmore’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --