Ueon Bak v. John Potter

465 F. App'x 705

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Ueon Bak appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the determination that a complaint lacks arguable substance in law or fact, and for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that “the face of the proposed complaint” showed that Bak’s claims had “no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. at 1370; see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (establishing Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement, as well as the time for a claimant to file an administrative charge and a civil action); Cal.Civ.Proc.Code §§ 335.1, 338(d) (establishing a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims, and a three-year statute of limitations for fraud claims); Legg v. Ford, 185 Cal.App.2d 534, 8 Cal.Rptr. 392, 397 (Ct.App.1960) (“Subornation of perjury, being a crime and not a tort, is subject to criminal prosecution brought in the interest of the state and not to redress a private wrong.”). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bak’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.

Bak’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

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