Lazor v. Yarborough

Ninth Circuit

Lazor v. Yarborough

119 F. App'x 160

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 12, 2005

DocketNo. 03-55568

StatusPublished

This text of 119 F. App'x 160 (Lazor v. Yarborough) 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

Lazor v. Yarborough, 119 F. App'x 160 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

P.F. Lazor, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his application for leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lazor’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because the record shows that Lazor has, on three or more prior occasions, brought an action that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Lazor’s contention that he faces “imminent danger of serious physical injury,” and is therefore exempt from 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) is not persuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

P.F. Lazor, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his application for leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lazor’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because the record shows that Lazor has, on three or more prior occasions, brought an action that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Lazor’s contention that he faces “imminent danger of serious physical injury,” and is therefore exempt from 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) is not persuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 F. App'x 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lazor-v-yarborough-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack