Hamm v. Ventura Department of Child Support Services

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHARLES A. HAMM, No. 17-55605 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-08381-PSG-AJW v. MEMORANDUM* VENTURA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Charles A. Hamm appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §1983 action after denying his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hamm’s IFP application because Hamm failed to make a sufficient showing of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (IFP statute); Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty (citation and internal quotation omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 17-55605