Pierre v. Meza

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD DORAN PIERRE, No. 24-5238 D.C. No. 2:24-cv-05192-PSG-AS Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* TROY MEZA; DOES, 1-10 Inclusive, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2026** Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Richard Doran Pierre appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his civil rights action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to proceed IFP.

* 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).

O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pierre’s IFP request and dismissing Pierre’s action because Pierre failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (recognizing dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is proper where a “claim is so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-5238