
    Christopher A. GRAY; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a public and private, added by law (named in the Record on Appeal), Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 06-56645.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 4, 2007 .
    Filed June 12, 2007.
    Christopher A. Gray, Hemet, CA, pro se.
    Donna L. Algren, Hemet, CA, pro se.
    Pamela J. Walls, Esq., Office of Riverside County Counsel, Riverside, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: LEAVY, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

On March 15, 2007, this court issued an order denying appellants’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and ordering appellants to show cause why the judgment challenged in this appeal should not be summarily affirmed.

Our review of the record and of appellants’ response to the court’s order to show cause indicates that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     