Maxwell Rangel Joelson v. United States Department of Justice;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAXWELL RANGEL JOELSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-56276
D.C. No. 8:18-cv-00777-AG-DFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Joelson’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 2) is
granted.
The Clerk shall file the opening brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 4.
Maxwell Rangel Joelson appeals pro se from the district court’s order
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-56276
denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his action alleging
federal claims relating to his federal criminal conviction. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave
to proceed IFP, and de novo a determination that a complaint lacks arguable
substance in law or fact. Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1369
(9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Joelson’s motion to
proceed IFP because Joelson failed to allege facts in his proposed complaint
sufficient to state a claim. See id. at 1370 (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 frivolous or without merit”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --