Bruce Westin v. Bank of America

Ninth Circuit

Bruce Westin v. Bank of America

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 22, 2023

Docket22-55719

StatusUnpublished

This text of Bruce Westin v. Bank of America (Bruce Westin v. Bank of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bruce Westin v. Bank of America, (9th Cir. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRUCE WESTIN, No. 22-55719

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-03655-VBF-DFM

v. MEMORANDUM* BANK OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Docket Entry No. 4) is

granted.

Bruce Westin appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissing his action alleging

* 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). various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 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 Westin’s IFP

request because Westin failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim

against either defendant. See 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)); Tripati, 821 F.2d 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.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 22-55719

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI