Did the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit err in barring the grant of in forma pauperis status regarding petitioner's civil rights complaint alleging denial of service of process?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Did the U-S.DbEstREeT Covey FoR mE DESTRICT OF AREZONA AND THE U.S. CooG” OF APPEALS ToR THE NINTH CTRCULT err ashen they roled Hnat He three styckes poursion yoder As U.3.C.§ 1945(9) barred tho grant a oF tho in borma Pauper & regardia 4 Pehhours civil mgs complaint alles 74 ha was blatantly denied tha service OF proce dF summons vpn WeFendents . Qi Ydve te tho alleged XY fro complaiat oF denied sersice F procs oY Sum MONS vpon Ddendonte, did ns vs: rst Coot, ang Ur& Cout t oF Appeals in barring Pro An Forme Paoperrs ae or AK V-S-C-SATITEG \ COPPER +1 © apely Hrs Horee, Strike? -prowi = on's breatining space” princi ple . 3. Regarding whats aileged in Poa ewil Compleat pamati | he qoverames tal paver(S> used fo bar semice oF Procere Pr doedents, was Pro Poti boners “Firat A mand want mignt oF tue speecn dui ed tam by He Ud Disk Goort anh J8. Coort OF ApRes I'S barciag fro in Forme, Pauperts under 2B V-LCTIVISCYS « 4. Is tho cwil complaint Filed by Png Det troneralecing that he has been denied sermice ot Proce OF Sommons in an aifempt te by 4h9 fespondents fo Frostete ond succeeding 1 dot a so , Hw Peftores cnil michts cline <ossectory to Hoo immi nent doncer or sertoms physical harm <landard. 5. wos tno Pebhoners Tirst Amand ment rigat fo acces Ho courts sila ted by tho V9. Dist Court br tho Destict or Arizona ond oa VJ.8. Cooct oy Appeals bor Ho Ninth Greort's decision(d).