Marin v. Hahn
Cases that cite this one
129 later published cases cite this decision. The 22 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Johnson v. Vernon (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Maida v. United States (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Robinson v. City of Las Vegas (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Robinson v. City of Las Vegas (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Holliday v. Experian Information Solutions (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Robinson v. City of Las Vegas (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- McCarley v. AIRBNB, Inc. (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Hendrix v. SpeedeeMart 76 Travel Center Inc. (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Robinson v. City of Las Vegas (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Thomas, III v. Clark County (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Bell v. Bisignano (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Hendrix v. University Medical Center (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Draper v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Greco v. O'Donnell (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Oyola v. Freedom Mortgage Corp (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Reddic v. UNLV (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Aught, Jr. v. Roe (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Aught, Jr. v. Clark County School District (CCSD) (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Guillen v. Kens Goods Inc. (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Villegas v. Noem (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Danforth v. City of Las Vegas (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Casillas v. Mitchell McConnell (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
Mel Marin appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Marin’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because Marin failed to verify his poverty adequately. See United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (holding that motion made under 28 U.S.C.. § 1915 was properly denied where “appellants were unable, or unwilling, to verify their poverty.”).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.