Home/Ninth Circuit/Steven Thoreson v. Ahmed

Steven Thoreson v. Ahmed

586 F. App'x 405
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedDecember 4, 2014
Docket13-17026
StatusUnpublished

This text of 586 F. App'x 405 (Steven Thoreson v. Ahmed) 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
Steven Thoreson v. Ahmed, 586 F. App'x 405 (9th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Steven Thoreson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district, court’s order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, James v. Madison St. Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 27 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thoreson’s motion to proceed IFP because Thoreson failed to submit a certified copy of his prisoner trust fund account statements for the previous six months as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). See Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir.2000) (“[PJrisoner-plaintiffs seeking to proceed in forma pau-peris [must] submit a certified copy of their prisoner trust fund account statement for the previous six months.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thoreson’s post-judgment motion because Thoreson did not identify any new evidence, change in law, clear error, or other basis for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and factors for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

Related

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
James v. Madison Street Jail
122 F.3d 27 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
Page v. Torrey
201 F.3d 1136 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
586 F. App'x 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-thoreson-v-ahmed-ca9-2014.