United States v. 2020-05-13 | 19-55854 | ARMIN ABAZARI V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARMIN ABAZARI, DPM, JD Candidate,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; et
al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-55854

D.C. No. 8:19-cv-01290-DMG-
FFM

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 6, 2020
**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Armin Abazari appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his action alleging federal and state
law claims related to his federal student loan debt. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to proceed

*
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

MAY 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-55854
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 Abazari’s motion to
proceed IFP because Abazari either failed to allege facts in his proposed complaint
sufficient to state a claim or the claims were frivolous. 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”); see also, e.g.,
United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Local 610 v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825,
828-29 (1983) (elements of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) claim); Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I.
Dupont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353, 361 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of civil
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim).
We reject as meritless Abazari’s contentions that the district judge was
biased and violated his constitutional rights, and did not review the findings and
recommendations de novo.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.