Opinion of the Court — Poe v. Douglas

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: June 13, 2002
Case: Poe v. Douglas
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

MEMORANDUM ** Antonio Poe, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the partial filing fee ordered by the district court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to impose a partial filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and dismissal for failure to pay. Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm. Because Poe failed to comply with the court’s order to pay the $ 4.17 partial filing fee, and offered no reason why he failed to *309 pay even though prison records indicated that he possessed adequate funds to pay, the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Alexander v. Carson Adult High Sch., 9 F.3d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir.1993). Poe’s request for appointed counsel is denied. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.