Gerrans v. Gunday

── Gerrans v. Gunday ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 7 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LAWRENCE J. GERRANS, AKA Larry No. 25-331 Gerrans, D.C. No. 3:24-cv-02187-JSC Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* ERHAN GUNDAY; ES MEDICAL, LLC; CHARLES N. WANG Ph. D.; ALEX HSIA; LON CHU; DIANA TA; DENNIS MEYER; LLOYD YARBROUGH; KEVIN BROWN; CHISTOPHER M. GERRANS; WHITNEY GERRANS; UNKNOWN PARTY, named as PHUC Main; JERRY KATZMAN, President and CEO of Sanovas, Inc.; STEVE BAYERN; ROBIN HARRIS, Assistant United States Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jacqueline Scott Corley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2026** * 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). Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Lawrence J. Gerrans appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his action brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gerrans’s motion to proceed IFP because Gerrans already paid the filing fee. See Lipscomb v. Madigan, 221 F.2d 798 (9th Cir. 1955) (an appeal from the denial of an IFP application after payment of the filing fee is moot). We do not consider the merits of Gerrans’s claims because they are outside the scope of this appeal. All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 25-331