FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WAYNE DOUGLAS MERKLEY, No. 15-35087
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00463-CWD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF IDAHO; CORIZON HEALTH
SERVICES INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Candy W. Dale, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted September 21, 2015***
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Idaho state prisoner Wayne Douglas Merkley appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Merkley consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims and claims under
the Americans with Disabilities Act. 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 Merkley’s motion to proceed IFP because it
concluded that Merkley did not make a sufficient showing of indigency. However,
there was inadequate support in the record to conclude that Merkley had access to
sufficient funds to pay the court costs and his basic needs. See id. at 1234
(explaining that a district court abuses its discretion when it “rules on an issue
without giving a party an opportunity to explain, or without adequate support on
the record”). The record shows that Merkley received approximately $130.00 per
month, but does not show how much his monthly expenses were and what items he
purchased at the prison’s commissary. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and
remand for further proceedings.
Because the scope of Merkley’s appeal is limited to the district court’s
denial of IFP, we do not consider the merits of Merkley’s claims.
All pending requests are denied.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
2 15-35087