Ian LaMonte Cormier v. Lynn E. Williams, et al.
iM 'Sam CaUIW ia j usl
iM mi}.wH&A PLaimTi FF<1S-le^A ^HisTo K ^aSed^ fbemA flwwas & Heard By fU5Tff
PUii^FT-AppEJsiAi^ PKitHTlt FiLiMQ FessTcTTH iS CjaSE^ vsiHtfc IHe CUec^tT CqurT of AppEALs E6roi?ed iKjDkmi^iWAFFi^'iKiG 'VpOLfl^ .case jMiFyj^THE^mLc^M For^ Pauperis ^To^liFF-ApptUi^T^^llle l^d5«r(W V^ M&I^Lieious, WAS A EE&>/2-6yTHE ^iKTTH CimliTCouRT.
wB &EV16US Cw'iL ApfiooJS WERE CarnpUiTiB ABouT AiTT LAfOjdSTiriA^y Bqnw FiRED By Hl-S, &eSSE$ UlUilE • - . flFlioiJERS Bossefi aSTwihADTHAFPSiriONlER-V/AS Svtetf W?* 1? 0l^LCflPu^CaHju¥;FA6Ly OK) FaIsecW) rU ^T-S a-j b'&pSupmop^CouiTTcurAnEB) LjpTHaSE FaLSE c^ esTo O^LCopuOIic^ A^KgrAtoU^Wf®
*{J J^ClWt KikTTH CjtooiT CourT of AppEAls Egj2oR_wH€viZTuib£ Nauye4 FAiLedIo fecuSE HirflSelf/HERSELF.VAiLiuHT 5 feCoftKlizEJ^pHEcaulD 6>e ReUTeD'To'THe -DeF&iDuvkiI MIcHaeL .*5 *S*i %0RKjEy^iva2S'iBb ^pEftoR.CouprHouStCUimS 0Ff,c£ •IjIWi W PftSoM. W
Whether the district court in San Diego, California, was justified in denying the in forma pauperis status to the plaintiff-appellant