Case ID: f-appx_687/html/0672-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Abubakar Hussein AHMED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ADOT agent of Stacey K Stanton; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-17136
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 21, 2017
    Abubakar Hussein Ahmed, Pro Se
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,