Bruce Westin v. Bank of America; United States Department of Justice

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRUCE WESTIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-55719
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-03655-VBF-DFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Docket Entry No. 4) is
granted.
Bruce Westin appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissing his action alleging
* 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
AUG 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-55719
various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to proceed IFP. 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 in denying Westin’s IFP
request because Westin failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim
against either defendant. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(explaining that, to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); 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.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --