Gerard Bell v. Washington Supreme Court

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERARD BELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT;
WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS,
Division II; PIERCE COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT; CITY OF TACOMA,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 23-35017
D.C. No. 3:22-cv-05613-DGE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
David G. Estudillo, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 10, 2023 **
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Gerard Bell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his
request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging due process and other claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
* 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
OCT 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-35017
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 Bell’s request to
proceed IFP because Bell failed to allege facts in his proposed amended complaint
sufficient to state a plausible claim against the defendants. See id. 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.”); see also 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).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --