Case ID: f-appx_419/html/0790-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ernest NAPPER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.K. WONG, individual and official capacity, Associate Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-56245.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 9, 2011.
    Ernest Napper, Jr., Tehachapi, CA, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Ernest Napper, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and file a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Napper’s IFP request because Napper failed to complete two questions on his IFP application concerning his financial capabilities, and the district court was unable to determine whether he was eligible for IFP status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (requiring that IFP application include information on “all assets such prisoner possesses”); United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (when a claim of poverty is made under § 1915, it is essential for the application to state the facts as to poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty).

We note, however, that in light of an intervening change in law, Napper may have a viable claim. See Byrd v. Marico- pa County Sheriffs Department, 629 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc) (a cross-gender strip search conducted in the absence of emergency circumstances is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment).

We deny Napper’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.