Gary Lee Newell v. Lake County Court;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GARY LEE NEWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LAKE COUNTY COURT; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-35293
D.C. No. 9:10-cv-00015-DWM-
JCL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Gary Lee Newell appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 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
FILED
NOV 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-35293 2
to proceed in forma pauperis. Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368,
1369 (9th Cir. 1987). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record.
Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008).
We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Newell’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis because it appears from the face of the proposed
complaint that his claims lack arguable substance in law or fact. See Tripati, 821
F.2d at 1369-70; see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S.
280, 284 (2005) (the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars de facto appeals of state court
judgments); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (plaintiff must
establish a nonfrivolous, arguable underlying claim to state a claim for denial of
access to the courts); Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2006)
(judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages based on their judicial
conduct except when acting “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction” (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted)); Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th
Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (municipal courts are arms of the state entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity).
Newell’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --