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

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · June 20, 2001 · 254 F.3d 845

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/773766

## Case

- **Full name:** Jesse J. CALHOUN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald N. STAHL; James Brazelton, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 20, 2001
- **Citations:** 254 F.3d 845; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 6269; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5086; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 13738; 2001 WL 687024
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** O'Scannlain, Silverman, Gould
- **Cited by:** 1,221 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/773766

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) applies to both prisoners and non- 8 prisoners proceeding IFP
- affirming that “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not 25 limited to prisoners”
- affirming that “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not 24 limited to prisoners”
- holding that 19 “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners” and also apply 20 to non-prisoners

## Opinion text

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,
see Page v. Torrey,
201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.2000), the provisions of 28 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.
See
28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ni) (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.
AFFIRM1ED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/773766. Public record. Not legal advice.