FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSS A. FIORANI, Nos. 13-17395
14-15178
Plaintiff - Appellant,
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01240-JST
v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD CORP.; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ross A. Fiorani appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and its judgment dismissing
his action alleging deceptive business practices for failure to comply with a court
order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discretion. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990) (IFP);
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal for failure to
comply with a court order). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fiorani’s motion for
leave to proceed IFP because his application form was incomplete. See United
States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (facts in
support of poverty must be stated with some particularity, definiteness, and
certainty).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Fiorani’s action
with prejudice for failure to obey the court’s order to comply with a pre-filing
requirement imposed against him and to file a completed application to proceed
IFP. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43 (discussing the five factors for
determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (although dismissal is a harsh
penalty, the district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed unless there is “a
definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of
judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors”
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
2 13-17395 & 14-15178
Because we affirm on the basis of Fiorani’s failure to comply with a court
order, we do not consider Fiorani’s contentions that his claims have merit.
We reject Fiorani’s contentions that the district court demonstrated bias.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-17395 & 14-15178