Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Jesse J. Calhoun v. Donald N. Stahl James Brazelton

254 F.3d 845

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2001-06-20
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners
  • holding that 18 district courts must screen all IFP plaintiffs’ complaints, not just prisoners’
  • holding that 8 district courts must screen all IFP plaintiffs’ complaints, not just prisoners’
  • determining that section 1915(e)(2)(B) is not limited to prisoners, but applies to all persons proceeding in forma pauperis
  • explaining that “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners”
  • affirming that 17 “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners”
  • noting that “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited 10 to prisoners”
  • noting that 18 “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Jesse J. Calhoun v. Donald N. Stahl James Brazelton. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1112 opinions
CALHOUN v. STAHL,254 F.3d 845(9th Cir. 2001)
Jesse J. CALHOUN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald N. STAHL; James
Brazelton, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-56216.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 11, 2001.fn*
Filed June 20, 2001
Jesse J. Calhoun, pro se, for the plaintiff-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-05648-TJH.
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
We review denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis for an abuse of discretion.Minetti v. Port of Seattle,152 F.3d 1113,1115(9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Because Calhoun's complaint sought monetary relief for actions taken in the course of employment by persons who are immune from suit, the district court properly denied in forma pauperis status.See Bogan v.Scott-Harris,523 U.S. 44,49,118 S.Ct. 966,140 L.Ed.2d 79(1998) (legislators);Ashelman v. Pope,793 F.2d 1072,1075-76(9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (judges and prosecutors).

Although Calhoun correctly contends that portions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act are not applicable to civil detainees,seePage v. Torrey,201 F.3d 1136,1140(9th Cir. 2000), the provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners,cf. Barren v. Harrington,152 F.3d 1193,1194(9th Cir. 1998) (order). The district court therefore properly concluded that Calhoun's complaint should not be allowed to proceed.See28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) (requiring dismissal of in forma pauperis proceedings that seek monetary relief against immune defendants).

We have considered Calhoun's remaining contentions and deny them as lacking merit.AFFIRMED.Page 846
  1. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and denies Calhoun's request for additional time to respond to the screening letter.SeeFed.R.App.P.34(a)(2). ↩