Ignacio Cervantes Chavez v. Los Angeles County;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IGNACIO CERVANTES CHAVEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-55697
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-08987-UA-FFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2015**
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Ignacio Cervantes Chavez appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action arising out of the vacatur of his state criminal conviction. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion
FILED
APR 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

the district court’s denial of leave to proceed IFP. See O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920
F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Chavez’s motion for
leave to proceed IFP because Chavez failed to allege any facts showing how the
defendants had violated his constitutional rights. See Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank &
Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A district court may deny leave to
proceed [IFP] at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint
that the action is . . . without merit.”); Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334,
1338 (9th Cir. 1986) (elements of a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983).
Chavez’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on November 19, 2014, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
14-55697 2

-- 2 of 2 --