Summary
finding district court abused its discretion by denying IFP application where filing fee was $400 and declaration showed monthly income of less than $500
Summary of this case from Trenton v. CarMax, Inc.Opinion
No. 15-16983
08-26-2016
JAMES REEDOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00005 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Guam
Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, Chief Judge, Presiding Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
James Reedom appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his action for failure to pay the filing fee after the denial of 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 reverse and remand.
The district court denied Reedom's IFP application because it determined that Reedom did not make a sufficient showing of indigency. However, the filing fee is $400 and Reedom receives less than $500 per month in supplemental security income and has no other 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."). Thus, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.