Summary
holding that the “district court properly determined that [plaintiff], proceeding pro se, could not prosecute the instant action as a class action”
Summary of this case from Dillon v. CoreCivicOpinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
State prisoner, proceeding pro se, brought class action against prison officials. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Terry J. Hatter, Jr., Chief Judge, denied leave to file action without prepayment of full filing fee, and prisoner appealed. The Court of Appeals held that pro se plaintiff could not prosecute action as class action.
Affirmed.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Terry J. Hatter, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding.
Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
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.
William W. Welch, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order denying leave to file the action without prepayment of the full filing fee. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis for abuse of discretion. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam). We affirm.
The district court properly determined that Welch, proceeding pro se, could not prosecute the instant action as a class action. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that a pro se litigant may not appear as an attorney for others). We express no opinion as to whether Welch's claims would be cognizable if brought as an individual action.
AFFIRMED.