Calhoun v. Stahl
9th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Twyne v. Social Security Administration
- 2026Roberts D. Alaska
- 2026Amirault D. Ariz.
- 2026Barjaktarovic D. Haw.
- 2026Martin D. Alaska
- 2026Haynie D. Ariz.
- 2026Granson Clark v. Capital One Auto Financing E.D. Cal.
- 2026Walker D. Ariz.
- 2026Boudreau D. Alaska
- 2026Sutherland D. Alaska
Cites 1 statute
- Proceedings in forma pauperis
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Jesse J. CALHOUN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald N. STAHL; James Brazelton, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges
- Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Attorneys
- Jesse J. Calhoun, pro se, for the plaintiff-appellant.
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.