# Brown v. Lafayette Federal Credit Union

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · September 25, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11144377

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 25, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11144377

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 25 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WINSTON MAURICE BROWN, No. 24-2839
D.C. No. 5:23-cv-01869-TJH-SP
Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.
MEMORANDUM*
LAFAYETTE FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION; HFS FINANCIAL; DOES 4-100,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 17, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, OWENS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

The motion (Docket Entry No. 6) to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is

granted.

Winston Maurice Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

*
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).
sua sponte dismissing his action on the basis that Brown’s allegation of poverty in

his request to proceed in forma pauperis was untrue. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787

F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). We vacate and remand.

Although there are discrepancies between statements Brown made in his

request to proceed in forma pauperis and in a loan application he filed as an

attachment to his motion for default judgment, Brown should have been allowed an

opportunity to explain those discrepancies. See id. at 1234. We vacate the

judgment and remand for the district court to provide Brown an opportunity to

address the contradictions noted by the district court.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All other pending requests are denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.

2 24-2839

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11144377. Public record. Not legal advice.