Ian L. Cormier v. Eric J. Siegler, of Temecula;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
IAN L. CORMIER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ERIC J. SIEGLER, of Temecula; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-56649
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-04907-ABC-
MLG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ian L. Cormier appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the determination
that a complaint lacks arguable substance in law or fact, and for an abuse of
FILED
JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-56649 2
discretion the denial of leave to proceed IFP. Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust,
821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cormier’s request
to proceed IFP because it properly concluded that Cormier’s action was frivolous,
failed to state a claim, and sought monetary relief from defendants who did not act
under color of state law or were immune from liability. See id. 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.”);
see also Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318 n.7 (1981) (noting that an
attorney does not act under the color of state law for the purposes of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 when performing the traditional role of an attorney); Hirsh v. Justices of the
Supreme Court, 67 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 1995) (the State Bar of California is an
arm of the state and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Ashelman v.
Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (“Judges and those
performing judge-like functions are absolutely immune from damage liability for
acts performed in their official capacities.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --