Ueon Bak v. JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area) Agency

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
UEON BAK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service (Pacific Area)
Agency; UNITED STATES POSTAL
SERVICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-56924
D.C. No. 8:10-cv-00983-UA-
DUTY
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Ueon Bak appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his request
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
JAN 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-56924 2
§ 1291. We review de novo the determination that a complaint lacks arguable
substance in law or fact, and for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368,
1369 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that “the face of the proposed
complaint” showed that Bak’s claims had “no arguable substance in law or fact.”
Id. at 1370; see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (establishing Title VII’s administrative
exhaustion requirement, as well as the time for a claimant to file an administrative
charge and a civil action); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 335.1, 338(d) (establishing a
two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims, and a three-year statute
of limitations for fraud claims); Legg v. Ford, 8 Cal. Rptr. 392, 397 (Ct. App.
1960) (“Subornation of perjury, being a crime and not a tort, is subject to criminal
prosecution brought in the interest of the state and not to redress a private
wrong.”). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Bak’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.
Bak’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --