Allen Hammler v. Dejiney Jones

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALLEN HAMMLER, No. 19-56263
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02831-JGB-SP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DEJINEY JONES; D. UMPHENOUR,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Allen Hammler appeals pro se from the district
court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional
violations for failure to pay the filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis status. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.
*
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).
James v. Madison Street Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 27 n.1 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hammler’s
action because Hammler failed to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis
or pay the filing fee by the deadline set by the district court. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)-(b); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining
that, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), all prisoners who file IFP
civil actions must pay the filing fee as laid out in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)); Page v.
Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) (the PLRA “imposes specific filing
requirements on prisoners seeking to file civil actions in forma pauperis” and that
these include a submission of “a certified copy of their prisoner trust account
statement for the previous six months. . . .”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hammler’s motion
for reconsideration because Hammler failed to establish any basis for relief. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)).
We do not consider arguments or allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 19-56263