In re: PETER THOMAS McCARTHY v. AMY L. GOLDMAN, Chapter 7 Trustee

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: PETER THOMAS McCARTHY,
Debtor,
PETER THOMAS McCARTHY,
Appellant,
v.
AMY L. GOLDMAN, Chapter 7 Trustee,
Appellee,
and
NATURE’S WING FIN DESIGN, LLC,
Appellee-Intervenor.
No. 10-56742
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-06347-RGK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
OCT 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
10-56742 2
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Peter Thomas McCarthy appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Tripati v. First Nat’l
Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McCarthy’s request
to proceed in forma pauperis in light of the monthly income and assets McCarthy
reported in his financial affidavit. See Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S.
194, 203 (1993) (an individual is indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 if he is unable to
pay fees and still provide the necessities of life for himself and any dependents).
McCarthy’s contention that the district court failed to apply the correct legal
standard is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --