Bryan Keith Richardson v. FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Warden;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BRYAN KEITH RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Warden; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-55902
D.C. No. 5:11-cv-00420-UA-AGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Bryan Keith Richardson appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in his action brought
under Bivens v. Six Unknown Names Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403
FILED
NOV 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-55902 2
U.S. 388 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 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 Richardson’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the complaint shows that the action is
without merit. See id. at 616-17; see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 475-76,
486 (1995) (prisoner has no due process right to present witnesses at prison
disciplinary proceeding where no atypical hardship imposed).
Richardson’s contention that the district court failed to construe his
complaint as a Bivens action is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --