green
Positive treatment
Hot · 73 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 119×
173.4 score
G Cite
cited 60× by 60 distinct cases, 2019–2024 ·
…the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
✓
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 2019 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2019
2022
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
(PS) Busto v. Chevron Corp.
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to 9 proceed ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is 10 frivolous or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
(PS) Michalek v. Totonotnna
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to 5 proceed ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is 6 frivolous or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Jensen v. City and County of San Francisco
the district 5 court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed ifp because it 6 appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous or 7 without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PC) Singh v. Blizzard
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Ellis v. County of El Dorado Mental Health Division
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Sweeting v. FBI
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Bird v. Porter
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 7 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 8 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Galindo v. Goehrig
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 7 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 8 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) King v. Superior Court of CA, Placer County
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Douglas v. Sony Group Corp.
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Van den Heuvel v. Reich
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Pinzon v. CA Dept. Health Care Serv.
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 12 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 13 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Trifu v. Police Department
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 6 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 7 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Rogers v. Gordon
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 13 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 14 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(SS)(PS) Jameson v. Commissioner of Social Security
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 7 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 8 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Olson v. Hornbook Community Services District
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Robb v. California Air Resources Board
the 24 district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed ifp because it 25 appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous or without 26 merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Aderholt v. Cooper
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Legardy v. Unknown
the 6 district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed ifp because it 7 appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous or without 8 merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Van den Heuvel v. Reich
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 7 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 8 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Rogers v. Gordon
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Peden v. Bernard
the 12 district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed ifp because it 13 appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous or without 14 merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Giannini v. Bonta
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Van den Heuvel v. Witherton
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Costa v. Haet
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Aderholt v. Edwards
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 7 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 8 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Padilla v. Bluebond
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) McElroy v. United States
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 7 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 8 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Pinzon v. CA Dept. Health Care Serv.
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PC) Singh v. Blizzard
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PC) Magallanes Castro v. United States
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 7 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 8 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Olson v. Hornbook Community Services District
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Rogers v. Jones
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Montano v. Small Business Administration
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Akbar v. Ashanti Publishing Group
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 12 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 13 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Ellis v. County of El Dorado Mental Health Division
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 12 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 13 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Edmonds v. John Steward Company
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PC) Bullard v. Internal Revenue Service
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 7 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 8 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Ortega v. Hinjosa
the 10 district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed ifp because it 11 appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous or without 12 merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Costa v. Haet
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 7 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 8 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Chiu v. President of the United States
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Lugo v. Durham
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Ellis v. County of El Dorado Mental Health Division
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Halousek v. Sacramento County Sheriff
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS)Meeks v. Butte County Children's Services Division
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying 12 mcgee's request to proceed ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that 13 mcgee's action is frivolous or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) McDonald v. Department of Motor Vehicles
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 13 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 14 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Edison v. Huneke
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Van Den Heuvel v. U.F.C. Gym Placerville Facility
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying 9 mcgee's request to proceed ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that 10 mcgee's action is frivolous or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Edmonds v. John Steward Company
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 10 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 11 or without merit
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Butler v. Dozier
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mcgee's request to proceed 7 ifp because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that mcgee's action is frivolous 8 or without merit
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Stephanie McGEE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, State of California State Bureau of Child Support Enforcement, Defendants-Appellees
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, State of California State Bureau of Child Support Enforcement, Defendants-Appellees
13-16131.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 21, 2014.
584 F. App'x 638
Stephanie McGee, pro se.
Schroeder, Thomas, Hurwitz.
Cited by 121 opinions | Unpublished | Civil
Citer courts: E.D. California (117)
MEMORANDUM **
Stephanie McGee appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in her action concerning child support payments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir.2011), and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of leave to proceed IFP, Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over McGee’s action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (requiring complete diversity of citizenship); K2 Am. Corp., 653 F.3d at 1029 (discussing requirements for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331); see also Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir.2012) (“[A] court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action. ...” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGee’s request to proceed IFP because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that McGee’s action is frivolous or without merit. See Minetti, 152 F.3d at 1115 (concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying IFP application where plaintiff lacked standing).
AFFIRMED.
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.