Summary
finding district court abused its discretion by denying IFP application where filing fee was $400 and declaration showed monthly income of $425
Summary of this case from Trenton v. CarMax, Inc.Opinion
No. 15-17136
04-21-2017
ABUBAKAR HUSSEIN AHMED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ADOT agent of Stacey K Stanton; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00409-DJH MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Abubakar Hussein Ahmed appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other federal statutes for failure to pay the filing fee after denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). We vacate and remand.
The district court abused its discretion in denying Ahmed's IFP application in light of the $400 filing fee and Ahmed's declaration showing a monthly income of only $425 and no assets. See id. ("An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life."). Ahmed's filings before this court, however, suggest Ahmed may no longer be indigent. We therefore vacate the district court's dismissal and remand with instructions for the district court to permit Ahmed to either file another IFP application or to pay the filing fee.
We reject as without merit Ahmed's contentions that he was denied due process in the district court.
Ahmed's request for reimbursement of the filing fee on appeal, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
VACATED and REMANDED.